^^RV  Of  mNca^ 


/v  - 


COMMENTARY  ^-^^^is.^ 


ON  THE 


EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS. 


BY 


CHAELES    UODGE, 

PKOFKSSOR   IN   THE    THEOLOGICAL    SEMINARY   AT   PRINCETON. 


NEW     EDITION", 
REVISED,   AND   IN    GREAT    MEASURE   REWRITTEN. 


PHILADELPHIA: 
WILLIAM   S.  &  ALFEED   MAETIEN, 

No.  606  Chestnut  Street. 
1864. 


Entered  accorJiDg  to  the  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1864,  by 

WILLIAM  S.  &  ALFRED  MARTIEN, 

In  the  Office  of  the  Clerk  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States,  in  and  for 
the  Eastern  District  of  Pennsylvania. 


INTRODUCTION. 


The  Apostle  Paul. 
"When  Paul  and  the  other  apostles  were  called  to  enter  upon 
their  important  duties,  the  world  was  in  a  deplorable  and  yet 
most  interesting  state.  Both  Heathenism  and  Judaism  were  in 
the  last  stages  of  decay.  The  polytheism  of  the  Greeks  and 
Romans  had  been  carried  to  such  an  extent  as  to  shock  the 
common  sense  of  mankind,  and  to  lead  the  more  intelligent 
among  them  openly  to  reject  and  ridicule  it.  This  scepticism 
had  already  extended  itself  to  the  mass  of  the  people,  and 
become  almost  universal.  As  the  transition  from  infidelity  to 
superstition  is  certain,  and  generally  immediate,  all  classes  of 
the  people  were  disposed  to  confide  in  dreams,  enchantments, 
and  other  miserable  substitutes  for  relifjiou.  The  two  reigning 
systems  of  philosophy,  the  Stoic  and  Platonic,  were  alike  insuf- 
ficient to  satisfy  the  agitated  minds  of  men.  The  former 
sternly  repressed  the  best  natural  feelings  of  the  soul,  incul- 
cating nothing  but  a  blind  resignation  to  the  unalterable  course 
of  things,  and  pi'omising  nothing  beyond  an  unconscious  exist- 
ence hereafter.  The  latter  regarded  all  religions  as  but  different 
forms  of  expressing  the  same  general  truths,  and  represented 
the  whole  mythological  system  as  an  allegory,  as  incomprehen- 
sible to  the  common  people,  as  the  pages  of  a  book  to  those 
who  cannot  read.  This  system  promised  more  than  it  could 
accomplish.  It  excited  feelings  which  it  could  not  satisfy,  and 
thus  contributed  to  produce  that  general  ferment  which  existed 
at  this  period.  Among  the  Jews,  generally,  the  state  of  things 
was  hardly  much  better.  They  had,  indeed,  the  form  of  true 
religion,  but  were  in  a  great  measure  destitute  of  its  spirit. 
The  Pharisees  were  contented  with  the  form;  the  Sadducees 
were  sceptics;  the  Essenes  were  enthusiasts  and  mystics.  Such 
being  the  state  of  the  world,  men  were  led  to  feel  the  need  of 
some  surer  guide  than  either  reason  or  tradition,  and  some 


4  INTRODUCTION. 

better  foundation  of  confidence  than  either  heathen  philosophers 
or  Jewish  sects  could  afford.  Hence,  when  the  glorious  gospel 
was  revealed,  thousands  of  hearts,  in  all  parts  of  the  world, 
were  prepared,  by  the  grace  of  God,  to  exclaim,  This  is  all  our 
desire  and  all  our  salvation. 

The  history  of  the  apostle  Paul  shows  that  he  was  prepared 
to  act  in  such  a  state  of  society.  In  the  first  place,  he  was 
born,  and  probably  educated  in  part,  at  Tarsus,  the  capital  of 
Cilicia;  a  city  almost  on  a  level  with  Athens  and  Alexandria, 
for  its  literary  zeal  and  advantages.  In  one  respect,  it  is  said 
by  ancient  Avriters  to  have  been  superior  to  either  of  them.  In 
the  other  cities  mentioned,  the  majority  of  students  were 
strangers,  but  in  Tarsus  they  were  the  inhabitants  themselves.* 
That  Paul  passed  the  early  part  of  his  life  here  is  probable, 
because  the  trade  which  he  was  tai^ht,  in  accordance  with  the 
custom  of  the  Jews,  was  one  peculiarly  common  in  Cilicia. 
From  the  hair  of  the  goats,  with  which  that  province  abounded, 
a  rough  cloth  was  made,  which  was  much  used  in  the  manufac- 
ture of  tents.  The  knowledge  which  the  apostle  manifests  of 
the  Greek  authors,  1  Cor.  xv.  33,  Titus  i.  12,  would  also  lead 
us  to  suppose  that  he  had  received  at  least  part  of  his  education 
in  a  Grecian  city.  Many  of  his  characteristics,  as  a  writer, 
lead  to  the  same  conclusion.  He  pursues,  far  more  than  any 
other  of  the  sacred  writers  of  purely  JcAvish  education,  the 
logical  method  in  presenting  truth.  There  is  almost  always  a 
regular  concatenation  in  his  discourses,  evincing  the  spontane- 
ous exercise  of  a  disciplined  mind,  even  when  not  carrying  out 
a  previous  plan.  His  epistles,  therefore,  are  far  more  logical 
than  ordinary  letters,  without  the  formality  of  regular  disserta- 
tions. Another  characteristic  of  his  manner  is,  that  in  discuss- 
ing any  question,  he  always  presents  the  ultimate  principle  on 
which  the  decision  depends.  These  and  similar  characteristics 
of  this  apostle  are  commonly,  and  probably  with  justice, 
ascribed  partly  to  his  turn  of  mind,  and  partly  to  his  early 
education.  We  learn  from  the  Scriptures  themselves,  that  the 
Holy  Spirit,  in  employing  men  as  his  instruments  in  conveying 
truth,  did  not  change  their  mental  habits;  he  did  not  make 
Jews  write  like  Greeks,  or  force  all  into  the  same  mould.    Each 

*  Strabo,  Lib.  14,  chap.  5. 


/ 


INTRODUCTION.  5 

retained  his  own  peculiarities  of  style  and  manner,  and,  there- 
fore, whatever  is  peculiar  to  each,  is  to  be  referred,  not  to  his 
inspiration,  but  to  his  original  character  and  culture.  While 
the  circumstances  just  referred  to,  render  it  probable  that  the 
apostle's  habits  of  mind  were  in  some  measure  influenced  by  his 
birth  and  early  education  in  Tarsus,  there  are  others  (such  as 
the  general  character  of  his  style)  which  show  that  his  residence 
there  could  not  have  been  long,  and  that  his  education  was  not 
thoroughly  Grecian.  We  learn  from  himself,  that  he  was  prin- 
cipally educated  at  Jerusalem,  being  brought  up,  as  he  says,  at 
the  feet  of  Gamaliel.   (Acts  xxii.  3.) 

This  is  the  second  circumstance  in  the  providential  prepara- 
tion of  the  apostle  for  his  work,  which  is  worthy  of  notice.  As 
Luther  was  educated  in  a  Roman  Catholic  seminary,  and  tho- 
roughly instructed  in  the  scholastic  theology  of  which  he  was 
to  be  the  great  opposer,  so  the  apostle  Paul  was  initiated  into 
all  the  doctrines  and  modes  of  reasoning  of  the  Jews,  with 
whom  his  principal  controversy  was  to  be  carried  on.  The 
early  adversaries  of  the  gospel  were  all  Jews.  Even  in  the 
heathen  cities  they  were  so  numerous,  that  it  Avas  through  them 
and  their  proselytes  that  the  church  in  such  places  was  founded. 
We  find,  therefore,  that  in  almost  all  his  epistles,  the  apostle 
contends  with  Jewish  errorists,  the  corrupters  of  the  gospel,  by 
means  of  Jewish  doctrines.  Paul,  the  most  extensively  useful 
of  all  the  apostles,  was  thus  a  thoroughly  educated  man ;  a  man 
educated  with  a  special  view  to  the  work  which  he  Avas  called  to 
perform.  We  find,  therefore,  in  this,  as  in  most  similar  cases, 
that  God  efi'ects  his  purposes  by  those  instruments  which  he 
has,  in  the  ordinary  course  of  his  providence,  specially  fitted 
for  their  accomplishment. 

In  the  third  place,  Paul  was  converted  without  the  interven- 
tion of  human  instrumentality,  and  was  taught  the  gospel  by 
immediate  revelation.  "I  certify  you,  brethren,"  he  says  to 
y)^'  J  the  Galatians,  "  that  the  gospel  which  was  preached  of  me,  was 
^  not  after  man.  For  I  neither  received  it  of  man,  neither  was  I 
taught  it,  but  by  the  revelation  of  Jesus  Christ."  These  cir- 
cumstances are  important,  as  he  was  thus  placed  completely  on 
a  level  with  the  other  apostles.  He  had  seen  the  Lord  Jesus, 
and  could  therefore  be  one  of  the  witnesses  of  his  resurrection; 


6  INTRODUCTION. 

he  was  able  to  claim  the  authority  of  an  original  inspired 
teacher  and  messenger  of  God.  It  is  obvious  that  he  laid  great 
stress  upon  this  point,  from  the  frequency  with  which  he  refers 
to  it.  He  was  thus  furnished  not  only  with  the  advantages  of 
his  early  education,  but  with  the  authority  and  power  of  an 
apostle  of  Jesus  Christ. 

His  natural  character  was  ardent,  energetic,  uncompromising, 
and  severe.  How  his  extravagance  and  violence. were  subdued 
by  the  grace  of  God,  is  abundantly  evident  from  the  modera- 
tion, mildness,  tenderness,  and  conciliation  manifested  in  all  his 
epistles.  Absorbed  in  the  one  object  of  glorifying  Christ,  he 
was  ready  to  submit  to  any  thing,  and  to  yield  any  thing  neces- 
sary for  this  purpose.  He  no  longer  insisted  that  others  should 
think  and  act  just  as  he  did.  So  that  they  obeyed  Christ,  he 
was  satisfied;  and  he  willingly  conformed  to  their  prejudices, 
and  tolerated  their  errors,  so  far  as  the  cause  of  truth  and 
righteousness  allowed.  By  his  early  education,  by  his  miracu- 
lous conversion  and  inspiration,  by  his  natural  disposition,  and 
by  the  abundant  grace  of  God,  was  this  apostle  fitted  for  his 
work,  and  sustained  under  his  multiplied  and  arduous  labours. 

Origin  and  Condition  op  the  Church  at  Rome. 

One  of  the  providential  circumstances  Avhich  most  effectually 
contributed  to  the  early  propagation  of  Christianity,  was  the 
dispersion  of  the  Jews  among  surrounding  nations.  They  were 
widely  scattered  through  the  East,  Egypt,  Syria,  Asia  Minor, 
Greece,  and  Italy,  especially  at  Rome.  As  they  were  permitted, 
throughout  the  wide  extent  of  the  Roman  Empire,  to  worship 
God  according  to  the  traditions  of  their  fathers,  synagogues 
were  every  where  established  in  the  midst  of  the  heathen.  The 
apostles,  being  Jews,  had  thus  always  a  ready  access  to  the 
people.  The  synagogues  furnished  a  convenient  place  for  regu- 
lar assemblies,  without  attracting  the  attention  or  exciting  the 
suspicion  of  the  civil  authorities.  In  these  assemblies  they 
were  sure  of  meeting  not  only  Jews,  but  the  heathen  also,  and 
precisely  the  class  of  heathen  best  prepared  for  the  reception 
of  the  gospel.  The  infinite  superiority  of  the  pure  theism  of  the 
Old  Testament  Scriptures  to  any  form  of  religion  known  to  the 
ancients,  could  not  fail  to  attract  and  convince  multitudes  among 


INTRODUCTION.  7 

the  pagans,  wherever  the  Jewish  worship  was  established.  Such 
persons  became  either  proselytes  or  "devout,"  that  is,  worship- 
pers of  the  true  God.  Being  free  from  the  inveterate  national 
and  religious  prejudices  of  the  Jews,  and  at  the  same  time  con- 
vinced of  the  falsehood  of  polytheism,  they  were  the  most  sus- 
ceptible of  all  the  early  hearers  of  the  gospel.  It  was  by  converts 
from  among  this  class  of  persons,  that  the  churches  in  all  the 
heathen  cities  were  in  a  great  measure  founded.  There  is 
abundant  evidence  that  the  Jews  were  very  numerous  at  Rome, 
and  that  the  class  of  proselytes  or  devout  persons  among  the 
Romans  was  also  very  large.  Philo  says  (Legatio  in  Caium, 
p.  1041,  ed.  Frankf.)  that  Augustus  had  assigned  the  Jews  a 
large  district  beyond  the  Tiber  for  their  residence.  He  accounts 
for  their  being  so  numerous,  from  the  fiict  that  the  captives  car- 
ried thither  by  Pompey  were  liberated  by  their  masters,  who 
found  it  inconvenient  to  have  servants  who  adhered  so  strictly 
to  a  religion  which  forbade  constant  and  familiar  intercourse 
with  the  heathen.  Dion  Cassius  (Lib.  60,  c.  6)  mentions  that 
the  Jews  were  so  numerous  at  Rome,  that  Claudius  was  at 
first  afraid  to  banish  them,  but  contented  himself  with  forbid- 
ding their  assembling  together.  That  he  afterwards,  on  account 
of  the  tumults  which  they  occasioned,  did  banish  them  from  the 
city,  is  mentioned  by  Suetonius  (Vita  Cl.iudii,  c.  25,)  and  by 
Luke,  Acts  xviii.  2.  That  the  Jews,  on  the  death  of  Claudius, 
returned  to  Rome,  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  Suetonius  and 
Dion  Cassius  speak  of  their  being  very  numerous  under  the  fol- 
lowing reigns ;  and  also  from  the  contents  of  this  epistle,  espe- 
cially the  salutations  (chap.  16)  addressed  to  Jewish  Christians. 
That  the  establishment  of  the  Jewish  worship  at  Rome  had 
produced  considerable  effect  on  the  Romans,  is  clear  from  the 
statements  of  the  heathen  writers  themselves.  Ovid  speaks  of 
the  synagogues  as  places  of  fashionable  resort ;  Juvenal  (Satire 
14)  ridicules  his  countrymen  for  becoming  Jews;*  and  Tacitus 

*  Quidam  sortiti  metuentem  sabbata  patrem, 
Nil  prseter  nubes,  cceli  numen  adorant : 
Nee  distare  putant  humana  carne  suillam, 
Qua  pater  abstinuit,  mox  et  prseputia  ponunt. 
Romanas  autem  soliti  contemnere  leges, 
Judaicum  ediscunt,  et  servant,  ac  metuunt  jus, 
Tradidit  arcano  quodcunque  volumine  Moses,  &c. 


8  INTRODUCTION. 

(Hist.  Lib.  5,  ch.  5*)  refers  to  the  presents  sent  by  Roman 
proselytes  to  Jerusalem.  The  way  was  thus  prepared  for  the 
early  reception  and  rapid  extension  of  Christianity  in  the  impe- 
rial city.  When  the  gospel  was  first  introduced  there,  or  by 
whom  the  introduction  was  effected,  is  unknown.  Such  was  the 
constant  intercourse  betAveen  Rome  and  the  provinces,  that  it  is 
not  surprising  that  some  of  the  numerous  converts  to  Christian- 
ity made  in  Judea,  Asia  Minor,  and  Greece,  should  at  an  early 
period  find  their  way  to  the  capital.  It  is  not  impossible  that 
many,  who  had  enjoyed  the  personal  ministry  of  Christ,  and 
believed  in  his  doctrines,  might  have  removed  or  returned  to 
Rome,  and  been  the  first  to  teach  the  gospel  in  that  city.  Still 
less  improbable  is  it,  that  among  the  multitudes  present  at  Jeru- 
salem at  the  day  of  Pentecost,  among  whom  were  "  strangers 
of  Rome,  Jews  and  proselytes,"  there  were  some  who  carried 
back  the  knowledge  of  the  gospel.  That  the  introduction  of 
Christianity  occurred  at  an  early  period,  may  be  inferred  not 
only  from  the  probabilities  just  referred  to,  but  from  other  cir- 
cumstances. When  Paul  wrote  this  epistle,  the  faith  of  the 
Romans  was  spoken  of  throughout  the  world,  which  would  seem 
to  imply  that  the  church  had  already  been  long  established. 
Aquila  and  Priscilla,  who  left  Rome  on  account  of  the  decree 
of  Claudius  banishing  the  Jews,  were  probably  Christians  before 
their  departure ;  nothing  at  least  is  said  of  their  having  been 
converted  by  the  apostle.  He  found  them  at  Corinth,  and 
being  of  the  same  trade,  he  abode  with  them,  and  on  his 
departure  took  them  with  him  into  Syria. 

The  tradition  of  some  of  the  ancient  Fathers,  that  Peter  was 
the  founder  of  the  church  at  Rome,  is  inconsistent  with  the 
statements  given  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  Irengeus  (Hseres. 
III.  1)  says,  that  "  Matthew  wrote  his  gospel,  while  Peter  and 
Paul  were  in  Rome  preaching  the  gospel  and  founding  the 
church  there."  And  Eusebius  (Chron.  ad  ann.  2  Claudii)  says, 
''Peter  having  founded  the  church  at  Antioch,  departed  for 
Rome,  preaching  the  gospel."  Both  these  statements  are  incor- 
rect.    Peter  did  not  found  the  church  at  Antioch,  nor  did  he 

*  Pessimus  quisque,  spretis  religionibus  patriis,  tributa  et  stipes  iliac  con- 
gerebat,  unde  auctae  Judaeorum  res. 


INTRODUCTION.  9 

and  Paul  preach  together  at  Rome.  That  Peter  -was  not  at 
Rome  prior  to  Paul's  visit,  appears  from  the  entire  silence  of 
this  epistle  on  the  subject;  and  from  no  mention  being  made  of 
the  fact  in  any  of  the  letters  written  from  Rome  by  Paul  during 
his  imprisonment.  The  tradition  that  Peter  ever  was  at  Rome, 
rests  on  very  uncertain  authority.  It  is  first  mentioned  by 
Dionysius  of  Corinth,  in  the  latter  half  of  the  second  century, 
and  from  that  time  it  seems  to  have  been  generally  received. 
The  account  is  in  itself  improbable,  as  Peter's  field  of  labour 
was  in  the  East,  about  Babylon  ;  and  as  the  statement  of  Diony- 
sius is  full  of  inaccuracies.  He  makes  Peter  and  Paul  the 
founders  of  the  church  at  Corinth,  and  makes  the  same  asser- 
tion regarding  the  church  at  Rome,  neither  of  which  is  true. 
He  also  says  that  Paul  and  Peter  suffered  martyrdom  at  the 
same  time  at  Rome,  which,  from  the  silence  of  Paul  respecting 
Peter,  during  his  last  imprisonment,  is  in  the  highest  degree 
improbable.*  History,  therefore,  has  left  us  ignorant  of  the 
time  when  this  church  was  founded,  and  the  persons  by  whom 
the  work  was  efiected. 

The  condition  of  the  congregation  may  be  inferred  from  the 
circumstances  already  mentioned,  and  from  the  drift  of  the 
apostle's  letter.  As  the  Jews  and  proselytes  were  very  numer- 
ous at  Rome,  the  early  converts,  as  might  be  expected,  were 
from  both  these  classes.  The  latter,  however,  seem  greatly  to 
have  predominated,  because  we  find  no  such  evidence  of  a  ten- 
dency to  Judaism,  as  is  supposed  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians. 
Paul  no  where  seems  to  apprehend  that  the  church  at  Rome 
would  apostatize,  as  the  Galatian  Christians  had  already  done. 
And  in  chapters  14  and  15,  his  exhortations  imply  that  the 
Gentile  party  were  more  in  danger  of  oppressing  the  Jewish, 
than  the  reverse.  Paul,  therefore,  writes  to  them  as  Gentiles 
(chap.  i.  13,)  and  claims,  in  virtue  of  his  office  as  apostle  to  the 
Gentiles,  the  right  to  address  them  with  all  freedom  and  author- 
ity (xv.  16.)  The  congregation,  however,  was  not  composed 
exclusively  of  this  class ;  many  converts,  originally  Jews,  were 
included  in  their  numbers,  and  those  belonging  to  the  other 

*  See  Eichhorn's  Einleitung,  Vol.  III.  p.  203,  and  Neander's  Geschichte  der 
Pflanzung,  &c.  p.  456. 


10  INTRODUCTION. 

class  were  more  or  less  under  the  influence  of  Jewish  opinions. 
The  apostle,  therefore,  in  this,  as  in  all  his  other  epistles 
addressed  to  congregations  similarly  situated,  refutes  those 
doctrines  of  the  Jews  which  were  inconsistent  with  the  gospel, 
and  answers  those  objections  which  they  and  those  under  their 
influence  were  accustomed  to  urge  against  it.  These  different 
elements  of  the  early  churches  were  almost  always  in  conflict, 
both  as  to  points  of  doctrine  and  discipline.  The  Jews 
insisted,  to  a  greater  or  less  extent,  on  their  peculiar  privileges 
and  customs ;  and  the  Gentiles  disregarded,  and  at  times 
despised  the  scruples  and  prejudices  of  their  weaker  brethren. 
The  opinions  of  the  Jews  particularly  controverted  in  this 
epistle  are,  1.  That  connection  with  Abraham  by  natural 
descent,  and  by  the  bond  of  circumcision,  together  with  the 
observance  of  the  law,  is  sufficient  to  secure  the  favour  of  God. 
2.  That  the  blessings  of  the  Messiah's  reign  were  to  be  con- 
fined to  Jews  and  those  who  would  consent  to  become  prose- 
lytes. 3.  That  subjection  to  heathen  magistrates  was  incon- 
sistent with  the  dignity  of  the  people  of  God,  and  with  their 
duty  to  the  Messiah  as  King. 

There  are  clear  indications  in  other  parts  of  Scripture,  as 
well  as  in  their  own  writings,  that  the  Jews  placed  their  chief 
dependence  upon  the  covenant  of  God  with  Abraham,  and 
the  peculiar  rites  and  ordinances  connected  with  it.  Our 
Saviour,  when  speaking  to  the  Jews,  tells  them,  "  Say  not, 
We  have  Abraham  to  our  father ;  for  I  say  unto  you,  that 
God  is  able  of  these  stones  to  raise  up  children  unto  Abra- 
ham," (Luke  iii.  8.)  It  is  clearly  implied  in  this  passage,  that 
the  Jews  supposed  that  to  have  Abraham  as  their  father 
was  sufficient  to  secure  the  favour  of  God.  The  Rabbins 
taught  that  God  had  promised  Abraham,  that  his  descendants, 
though  wicked,  should  be  saved  on  account  of  his  merit. 
Justin  Martyr  mentions  this  as  the  ground  of  confidence  of  the 
Jews  in  his  day.  "Your  Rabbins,"  he  says,  "deceive  them- 
selves and  us,  in  supposing  that  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  pre- 
pared for  all  those  who  are  the  natural  seed  of  Abraham,  even 
though  they  be  sinners  and  unbelievers."  [Dialogue  with 
Trypho.)  They  were  accustomed  to  say,  "Great  is  the  virtue 
of  circumcision;  no  circumcised  person  enters  hell."     And  one 


INTRODUCTION.  11 

of  their  standing  maxims  was,  "All  Israel  hath  part  in  eternal 
life."* 

The  second  leading  error  of  the  Jews  was  a  natural  result 
of  the  one  just  referred  to.  If  salvation  was  secured  by  con- 
nection with  Abraham,  then  none  who  were  not  united  to  their 
great  ancestor  could  be  saved.  There  is  no  opinion  of  the  Jews 
more  conspicuous  in  the  sacred  writings,  than  that  they  were 
greatly  superior  to  the  Gentiles ;  that  the  theocracy  and  all  its 
blessings  belonged  to  them;  and  that  others  could  attain  even 
an  inferior  station  in  the  kingdom  of  the  Messiah  only  by 
becoming  Jews. 

The  indisposition  of  the  Jews  to  submit  to  heathen  magis- 
trates, arose  partly  from  their  high  ideas  of  their  own  dignity, 
and  their  contempt  for  other  nations;  partly  from  their  erro- 
neous opinions  of  the  nature  of  the  Messiah's  kingdom,  and 
partly,  no  doubt,  from  the  peculiar  hardships  and  oppressions 
to  which  they  were  exposed.  The  prevalence  of  this  indisposi- 
tion among  them  is  proved  by  its  being  a  matter  of  discussion 
whether  it  was  even  lawful  to  pay  tribute  to  Caesar ;  by  their 
assertion  that,  as  Abraham's  seed,  they  were  never  in  bondage 
to  any  man;  and  by  their  constant  tumults  and  rebellions, 
which  led  first  to  their  banishment  from  Rome,  and  finally  to 
the  utter  destruction  of  their  city.  The  circumstances  of  the 
church  at  Rome,  composed  of  both  Jewish  and  Gentile  con- 
verts ;  surrounded  by  Jews  who  still  insisted  on  the  necessity 
of  circumcision,  of  legal  obedience,  and  of  connection  with  the 
family  of  Abraham,  in  order  to  salvation;  and  disposed  on 
many  points  to  diiFer  among  themselves,  sufficiently  account  for 
the  character  of  this  epistle. 

Time  and  Place  op  its  Composition. 
There  are  no  sufficient  data  for  fixing  accurately  and  cer- 
tainly the  chronology  of  the  life  and  writings  of  the  apostle 
Paul.  It  is  therefore,  in  most  cases,  only  by  a  comparison  of 
various  circumstances,  that  an  approximation  to  the  date  of  the 
principal  events  of  his  life  can  be  made.     With  regard  to  this 

*  See  Raymundi  Martini  Pugio  Fidei,  P.  III.  Disc.  3,  c.  16.  Pococke's  Mis- 
cellanea, p.  172,  227.  Witsii  Miscellanea,  P.  II.  p,  553.  Micbaeli'a  Introduc- 
tion to  the  New  Testament,  Vol.  III.  p.  93. 


12  INTRODUCTION. 

epistle,  it  is  plain,  from  its  contents,  that  it  was  -written  just  as 
Paul  was  about  to  set  out  on  his  last  journey  to  Jerusalem.  In 
the  fifteenth  chapter  he  says,  that  the  Christians  of  Macedonia 
and  Achaia  had  made  a  collection  for  the  poor  saints  in  Jeru- 
salem, and  that  he  was  on  the  eve  of  his  departure  for  that  city 
(ver.  25.)  This  same  journey  is  mentioned  in  Acts  xx.,  and 
occurred  most  probably  in  the  spring  (see  Acts  xx.  16)  of  the 
year  58  or  59.  This  date  best  suits  the  account  of  his  long 
imprisonment,  first  at  Cesarea,  and  then  at  Rome,  of  four  years, 
and  his  probable  liberation  in  62  or  63.  His  subsequent  labours 
and  second  imprisonment  would  fill  up  the  intervening  period 
of  two  or  three  years,  to  the  date  of  his  martyrdom,  towards 
the  close  of  the  reign  of  Nero.  That  this  epistle  was  written 
from  Corinth,  appears  from  the  special  recommendation  of 
Phebe,  a  deaconess  of  the  neighbouring  church,  who  was  pro- 
l)ably  the  bearer  of  the  letter  (chap.  xvi.  1 ;)  from  the  saluta- 
tions of  Erastus  and  Gains,  both  residents  of  Corinth,  to  the 
Ptomans  (chap.  xvi.  23 ;)  compare  2  Tim.  iv.  20,  and  1  Cor. 
i.  14 ;  and  from  the  account  given  in  Acts  xx.  2,  3,  of  Paul's 
journey  through  Macedonia  into  Greece,  before  his  departure 
for  Jerusalem,  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  the  contributions  of 
the  churches  for  the  poor  in  that  city. 

Authenticity  op  the  Epistle. 

That  this  epistle  was  written  by  the  apostle  Paul,  admits  of 
no  reasonable  doubt.  1.  It,  in  the  first  place,  purports  to  be 
his.  It  bears  his  signature,  and  speaks  throughout  in  his  name. 
2.  It  has  uniformly  been  recognised  as  his.  From  the  apostolic 
age  to  the  present  time,  it  has  been  referred  to  and  quoted  by  a 
regular  series  of  authors,  and  recognised  as  of  divine  authority 
in  all  the  churches.  It  would  be  requisite,  in  order  to  disprove 
its  authenticity,  to  account  satisfactorily  for  these  facts,  on  the 
supposition  of  the  epistle  being  spurious.  The  passages  in  the 
early  writers,  in  which  this  epistle  is  alluded  to  or  cited,  are 
very  numerous,  and  may  be  seen  in  Lardner's  Credibility, 
Vol.  II.  3.  The  internal  evidence  is  no  less  decisive  in  its 
favour,  (a)  In  the  first  place,  it  is  evidently  the  production  of 
a  Jew,  familiar  with  the  Hebrew  text  and  the  Septuagint  ver- 
sion of  the  Old  Testament,  because  the  language  and  style  are 


INTRODUCTION.  13 

such  as  no  one,  not  thus  circumstanced,  could  adopt;  and  be- 
cause the  whole  letter  evinces  such  an  intimate  acquaintance 
with  Jewish  opinions  and  prejudices,  (b)  It  agrees  perfectly  in 
st^'le  and  manner  with  the  other  epistles  of  this  apostle,  (c)  It 
is,  in  the  truth  and  importance  of  its  doctrines,  and  in  the  eleva- 
tion and  purity  of  its  sentiments,  immeasurably  superior  to  any 
uninspired  production  of  the  age  in  which  it  appeared.  A  com- 
parison of  the  genuine  apostolic  writings  with  the  spurious  pro- 
ductions of  the  first  and  second  centuries,  afi"ords  one  of  the 
strongest  collateral  evidences  of  the  authenticity  and  inspiration 
of  the  former,  (d)  The  incidental  or  undesigned  coincidences, 
a3  to  matters  of  fact,  between  this  epistle  and  other  parts  of  the 
New  Testament,  are  such  as  to  afford  the  clearest  evidence  of 
its  having  proceeded  from  the  pen  of  the  apostle.  Compare 
Rom.  XV.  25 — 31  with  Acts  xx.  2,  3,  xxiv.  17,  1  Cor.  xvi.  1 — 4, 
2  Cor.  viii.  1 — 4,  ix.  2,  Rom.  xvi.  21 — 23  with  Acts  xx.  4,  Rom. 
xvi.  3,  et  seqq.  with  Acts  xviii.  2,  18 — 26,  1  Cor,  xvi.  19,  &c., 
(see  Paley's  Hone  Paulinos.)  4.  Besides  these  positive  proofs, 
there  is  the  important  negative  consideration,  that  there  are  no 
grounds  for  questioning  its  authenticity.  There  are  no  discre- 
pancies between  this  and  other  sacred  writings ;  no  counter 
testimony  among  the  early  Fathers;  no  historical  or  critical 
difficulties  which  must  be  solved  before  it  can  be  recognised  as 
the  work  of  Paul.  There  is,  therefore,  no  book  in  the  Bible, 
and  there  is  no  ancient  book  in  the  world,  of  which  the  authen- 
ticity is  more  certain  than  that  of  this  epistle. 
Analysis  op  the  Epistle. 

The  epistle  consists  of  three  parts.  The  first,  which  includes 
the  first  eight  chapters,  is  occupied  in  the  discussion  of  the  doc- 
trine of  justification  and  its  consequences.  The  second,  embrac- 
ing chs.  ix. — xi.,  treats  of  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles,  the  rejec- 
tion and  future  conversion  of  the  Jews.  The  third  consists  of 
practical  exhortations  and  salutations  to  the  Christians  at  Rome. 

The  first  part  the  apostle  commences  by  saluting  the  Roman 
Christians,  commending  them  for  their  faith,  and  expressing  his 
desire  to  see  them,  and  his  readiness  to  preach  the  gospel  at 
Rome.  This  readiness  was  founded  on  the  conviction  that  the 
gospel  revealed  the  only  method  by  which  men  can  be  saved, 
viz.,  by  faith  in  Jesus  Christ,  and  tliis  method  is  equally  appli- 


14  INTRODUCTION. 

cable  to  all  mankind,  Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews,  cliap.  i.  1 — 17. 
Paul  thus  introduces  the  two  leading  topics  of  the  epistle. 

In  order  to  establish  his  doctrine  respecting  justification,  he 
first  proves  that  the  Gentiles  cannot  be  justified  by  their  own 
works,  chap.  i.  18 — 39;  and  then  establishes  the  same  position 
in  reference  to  the  Jews,  chs.  ii.  iii.  1 — 20.  Having  thus  shown 
that  the  method  of  justification  by  works  is  unavailable  for 
sinners,  he  unfolds  that  method  which  is  taught  in  the  gospel, 
chap.  iii.  21 — 31.  The  truth  and  excellence  of  this  method  he 
confirms  in  chs.  iv.  and  v.  The  obvious  objection  to  the  doc- 
trine of  gratuitous  acceptance,  that  it  must  lead  to  the  indulgence 
of  sin,  is  answered,  and  the  true  design  and  operation  of  the  law 
are  exhibited  in  chs.  vi.  and  vii.;  and  the  complete  security  of 
all  who  confide  in  Christ  is  beautifully  unfolded  in  chap.  viii. 

In  arguing  against  the  Gentiles,  Paul  assumes  the  principle 
that  God  will  punish  sin,  chap.  i.  18,  and  then  proves  that  they 
are  justly  chargeable  both  with  impiety  and  immorality,  because, 
though  they  possessed  a  competent  knowledge  of  God,  they  did 
not  worship  him,  but  turned  unto  idols,  and  gave  themselves  up 
to  all  kinds  of  iniquity,  chap.  i.  19 — 82. 

He  commences  his  argument  with  the  Jews  by  expanding  the 
general  principle  of  the  divine  justice,  and  especially  insisting 
on  God's  impartiality  by  showing  that  he  will  judge  all  men, 
Jews  and  Gentiles,  according  to  their  works,  and  according  to 
the  light  they  severally  enjoyed,  chap.  ii.  1 — 16.  He  shows  tliat 
the  Jews,  when  tried  by  these  rules,  are  as  justly  and  certainly 
exposed  to  condemnation  as  the  Gentiles,  chap.  ii.  17 — 29. 

The  peculiar  privileges  of  the  Jews  afford  no  ground  of  hope 
that  they  will  escape  being  judged  on  the  same  principles  with 
other  men,  and  when  thus  judged,  they  are  found- to  be  guilty 
before  God.  All  men  therefore  are,  as  the  Scriptures  abun- 
dantly teach,  under  condemnation,  and  consequently  cannot  be 
justified  by  their  own  works,  chap.  iii.  1 — 20. 

The  gospel  proposes  the  only  method  by  which  God  will 
justify  men — a  method  which  is  entirely  gratuitous;  the  condi- 
tion of  which  is  faith ;  Avhich  is  founded  on  the  redemption  of 
Christ;  which  reconciles  the  justice  and  mercy  of  God;  hum- 
bles man;  lays  the  foundation  for  an  universal  religion,  and 
establishes  the  law,  chap.  iii.  21 — 31. 


INTRODUCTION.  15 

The  truth  of  this  doctrine  is  evinced  from  the  example  of 
Abraham,  the  testimony  of  David,  the  nature  of  the  covenant 
made  with  Abraham  and  his  seed,  and  from  the  nature  of  the 
law.  He  proposes  the  conduct  of  Abraham  as  an  example  and 
encouragement  to  Christians,  chap.  iv.  1 — 25. 

Justification  by  faith  in  Christ  secures  peace  with  God,  pre- 
sent joy,  and  the  assurance  of  eternal  life,  chap.  v.  1 — 11.  The 
method,  therefore,  by  which  God  proposes  to  save  sinners,  is 
analogous  to  that  by  which  they  were  first  brought  under  con- 
demnation. As  on  account  of  the  offence  of  one,  sentence  has 
passed  on  all  men  to  condemnation ;  so  on  account  of  the  right- 
eousness of  one,  all  are  justified,  chap.  v.  12 — 21. 

The  doctrine  of  the  gratuitous  justification  of  sinners  cannot 
lead  to  the  indulgence  of  sin,  because  such  is  the  nature  of  union 
with  Christ,  and  such  the  object  for  which  he  died,  that  all  who 
receive  the  benefits  of  his  death,  experience  the  sanctifying 
influence  of  his  life,  chap.  vi.  1 — 11.  Besides,  the  objection  in 
question  is  founded  on  a.misapprehcnsion  of  the  effect  and  design 
of  the  law,  and  of  the  nature  of  sanctification.  Deliverance 
from  the  bondage  of  the  law  and  from  a  legal  spirit  is  essential 
to  holiness.  When  the  Christian  is  delivered  from  this  bondage, 
he  becomes  the  servant  of  God,  and  is  brought  under  an  influ- 
ence which  effectually  secures  his  obedience,  chap.  vi.  12 — 23. 

As,  therefore,  a  woman,  in  order  to  be  married  to  a  second 
husband,  must  first  be  freed  from  her  former  one,  so  the  Chris- 
tian, in  order  to  be  united  to  Christ,  and  to  bring  forth  fruit 
unto  God,  must  first  be  freed  from  the  law,  chap.  vii.  1 — 6. 

This  necessity  of  deliverance  from  the  law,  does  not  arise 
from  the  fact  that  the  law  is  evil,  but  from  the  nature  of  the 
case.  The  law  is  but  the  authoritative  declaration  of  duty; 
which  cannot  alter  the  state  of  the  sinner's  heart.  Its  real 
operation  is  to  produce  the  conviction  of  sin  (vs.  7 — 13,)  and, 
in  the  renewed  mind,  to  excite  approbation  and  complacency  in 
the  excellence  which  it  exhibits,  but  it  cannot  effectually  secure 
the  destruction  of  sin.  This  can  only  be  done  by  the  grace  of 
God  in  Jesus  Christ,  chap.  vii.  7 — 25. 

Those  who  are  in  Christ,  therefore,  are  perfectly  safe.  They 
are  freed  from  the  law ;  they  have  the  indwelling  of  the  life- 
giving  Spirit :  they  are  the  children  of  God ;  they  are  chosen, 


16  INTRODUCTION. 

called,  and  justified  according  to  the  divine  purpose ;  and  they 
are  the  objects  of  the  unchanging  love  of  God,  chap.  viii.  1 — 39. 

The  second  part  of  the  epistle  relates  to  the  persons  to ' 
whom  the  blessings  of  Christ's  kingdom  may  properly  be  offered, 
and  the  purposes  of  God  respecting  the  Jews.  In  entering  upon 
this  subject,  the  apostle,  after  assuring  his  kindred  of  his  affec- 
tion, establishes  the  position  that  God  has  not  bound  himself  to 
regard  as  his  children  all  the  natural  descendants  of  Abraham, 
but  is  at  perfect  liberty  to  choose  whom  he  will  to  be  heirs  of 
his  kingdom.  The  right  of  God  to  have  mercy  on  whom  he 
will  have  mercy,  he  proves  from  the  declarations  of  Scripture, 
and  from  the  dispensations  of  his  providence.  He  shows  that 
this  doctrine  of  the  divine  sovereignty  is  not  inconsistent  with 
the  divine  character  or  man's  responsibility,  because  God 
simply  chooses  from  among  the  undeserving  whom  he  will  as 
the  objects  of  his  mercy,  and  leaves  others  to  the  just  recom- 
pense of  their  sins,  chap.  ix.  1 — 24. 

God  accordingly  predicted  of  old,  that  he  would  call  the 
Gentiles  and  reject  the  Jews.  The  rejection  of  the  Jews  was 
on  account  of  their  unbelief,  chs.  ix.  25 — 33,  x.  1 — 5.  The 
two  methods  of  justification  are  then  contrasted  for  the  purpose 
of  showing  that  the  legal  method  is  impracticable,  but  that  the 
method  proposed  in  the  gospel  is  simple  and  easy,  and  adapted 
to  all  men.  It  should,  therefore,  agreeably  to  the  revealed 
purpose  of  God,  be  preached  to  all  men,  chap.  x.  6 — 21. 

The  rejection  of  the  Jews  is  not  total ;  many  of  that  genera- 
tion were  brought  into  the  church,  who  were  of  the  election  of 
grace,  chap.  xi.  1 — 10.  Neither  is  this  rejection  final.  There 
is  to  be  a  future  and  general  conversion  of  the  Jews  to  Christ, 
and  thus  all  Israel  shall  be  saved,  chap,  xi.  11 — 86. 

The  third  or  practical  part  of  the  epistle,  consists  of  direc- 
tions, first,  as  to  the  general  duties  of  Christians  in  their  vari- 
ous relations  to  God,  chap,  xii.;  secondly,  as  to  their  political 
or  civil  duties,  chap,  xiii.;  and  thirdly,  as  to  their  ecclesiastical 
duties,  or  those  duties  which  they  owe  to  each  other  as  mem- 
bers of  the  church,  chs.  xiv.  xv.  1 — 13. 

The  epistle  concludes  with  some  account  of  Paul's  labours 
and  purposes,  chap.  xv.  14 — 33,  and  with  the  usual  saluta- 
tions, chap.  xvi. 


A   COMMENTARY 


EPISTLE    TO    THE    ROMANS. 


CHAPTER    I. 

CONTENTS. 

This  chapter  consists  of  two  parts.  The  first  extends  to 
the  close  of  ver.  17,  and  contains  the  general  introduction  to 
the  epistle.  The  second  commences  with  ver.  18,  and  extends 
to  the  end  of  the  chapter:  it  contains  the  argument  of  the 
apostle  to  prove  that  the  declaration  contained  in  vs.  16,  17, 
that  justification  can  only  be  obtained  by  faith,  is  true  with 
regard  to  the  heathen. 

ROMANS   I.    1—17. 

ANALYSIS. 
This  section  consists  of  two  parts.  The  first  from  vs.  1  to  7 
inclusive,  is  a  salutatory  address ;  the  second,  from  vs.  8  to  17, 
is  the  introduction  to  the  epistle.  Paul  commences  by  an- 
nouncing himself  as  a  divinely  commissioned  teacher,  set  apart 
to  the  preaching  of  the  gospel,  ver.  1.  Of  this  gospel,  he  says, 
1.  That  it  was  promised,  and  of  course  partially  exhibited  in 
the  Old  Testament,  ver.  2.  2.  That  its  great  subject  was 
Jesus  Christ,  ver.  3.  Of  Christ  he  says,  that  he  was,  as  to  his 
human  nature,  the  Son  of  David ;  but  as  to  his  divine  nature, 
the  Son  of  God,  vs.  3,  4.  From  this  Divine  Person  he  had 
received  his  office  as  an  apostle.  The  object  of  this  office  was 
to  bring  men  to  believe  the  gospel ;  and  it  contemplated  all 
2  (17) 


18  ROMANS  I.  1. 

nations  as  the  field  of  its  labour,  ver.  5,  Of  course  the  Romans 
were  included,  ver.  6.  To  the  Roman  Christians,  therefore, 
he  wishes  grace  and  peace,  ver.  7.     Thus  far  the  salutation. 

Having  shown  in  what  character,  and  by  what  right  he  ad- 
dressed them,  the  apostle  introduces  the  subject  of  his  letter 
by  expressing  to  them  his  respect  and  affection.  He  thanks 
God,  not  only  that  they  believed,  but  that  their  faith  was  uni- 
versally known  and  talked  of,  ver.  9,  As  an  evidence  of  his 
concern  for  them,  he  mentions,  1.  That  he  prayed  for  them 
constantly,  ver.  9.  2.  That  he  longed  to  see  them,  vs.  10,  11. 
3.  That  this  wish  to  see  them  arose  from  a  desire  to  do  them 
good,  and  to  reap  some  fruit  of  his  ministry  among  them,  as 
well  as  among  other  Gentiles,  vs.  12,  13.  Because  he  was 
under  obligation  to  preach  to  all  men,  wise  and  unwise,  he  was 
therefore  ready  to  preach  even  at  Rome,  vs.  14,  15.  This 
readiness  to  preach  arose  from  the  high  estimate  he  entertained 
of  the  gospel.  And  his  reverence  for  the  gospel  was  founded 
not  on  its  excellent  system  of  morals  qjerely,  but  on  its  efficacy 
in  saving  all  who  believe,  whether  Jews  or  Gentiles,  ver.  16. 
This  efficacy  of  the  gospel  arises  from  its  teaching  the  true 
method  of  justification,  that  is,  the  method  of  justification  by 
faith,  ver.  17.  It  will  be  perceived  how  naturally  and  skil- 
fully the  apostle  introduces  the  two  great  subjects  of  the 
epistle — the  method  of  salvation,  and  the  persons  to  whom  it 
may  properly  be  offered. 

COMMENTARY. 

Verse  1.  PawZ,  a  servant  of  Jesus  Christ,  called  an  apostle. 
Agreeably  to  the  ancient  mode  of  epistolary  address,  the 
apostle  begins  with  the  declaration  of  his  name  and  office.  It 
was  his  office  which  gave  him  the  right  to  address  the  believers 
at  Rome,  and  elsewhere,  with  that  tone  of  authority  which  per- 
vades all  his  epistles.  Speaking  as  the  messenger  of  Christ, 
he  spake  as  he  spake,  as  one  having  authority,  and  not  as  an 
ordinary  teacher. 

The  original  name  of  the  apostle  was  Saul,  b^j*ffl  demanded. 
He  is  first  called  Paul  in  Acts  xiii.  9.  As  this  change  of  his 
name  is  mentioned  in  the  paragraph  which  contains  the  account 
of  the  conversion  of  Sergius  Paulus,  the  proconsul  of  Cyprus, 


ROMANS  I.  1.  19 

some  have  supposed  that  the  name  was  assumed  in  compliment 
to  that  distinguished  convert.  This  supposition  does  not  seem 
to  accord  with  the  apostle's  character,  and  is,  on  other  grounds, 
less  prohable  than  either  of  the  two  following.  First,  as  it  was 
not  unusual,  among  the  Jews,  to  change  the  name  of  a  person 
in  consequence  of  some  remarkable  event,  as  in  the  case  of 
Abraham  and  Jacob,  Gen.  xvii.  5,  xxxii.  8;  or  when  he  was 
advanced  to  some  new  office  or  dignity.  Gen.  xli.  45,  Dan.  i. 
6,  7 ;  so  that  a  new  name  is  sometimes  equivalent  to  a  new 
dignity.  Rev.  ii.  17,  it  may  be  supposed  that  the  apostle  re- 
ceived the  name  of  Paul,  when  called  to  the  office  of  an  apostle,  y 
This  supposition  is  favoured  by  the  consideration  that  he 
received  the  name  soon  after  he  entered  upon  the  public  exer- 
cise of  his  apostleship,  and  by  the  fact  that  Simon  was  called 
Cephas  when  called  to  be  an  apostle,  John  i.  42,  Matt.  x.  2, 
and  that  James  and  John  were  called  Boanerges,  Mark  iii.  17. 
Hence  Theophylact  says  that  it  was  in  order  that  even  in  this 
matter,  he  should  not  be  behind  the  very  chief  of  the  apos- 
tles, that  Saul  was  called  Paul.  Second,  as  it  was  very  com- 
mon for  those  Jews  who  had  much  intercourse  with  the  hea- 
then to  bear  two  names,  one  Jewish  and  the  other  Greek  or 
Roman,  which  names  were  sometimes  entirely  distinct,  as  Hillel 
and  Pollio,  sometimes  nearly  related  as  Silas  and  Silvanus,  it  is 
very  probable  that  this  was  the  case  with  the  apostle.  He 
was  called  Saul  among  the  Jews,  and  Paul  among  the  Gentiles ; 
and  as  he  was  the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles,  the  latter  name 
became  his  common  designation.  As  this  change  was,  however, 
made  or  announced  at  an  epoch  in  the  apostle's  history.  Acts 
xiii.  9,  the  two  explanations  may  be  united.  "The  only  sup- 
position," says  Dr.  J.  A.  Alexander,  in  his  comment  on 
Acts  xiii.  9,  "which  is  free  from  all  these  difficulties,  and 
affiards  a  satisfactory  solution  of  the  facts  in  question,  is,  that 
this  was  the  time  fixed  by  Divine  authority  for  Paul's  manifes- 
tation as  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles,  and  that  manifestation  was 
made  more  conspicuous  by  its  coincidence  with  the  triumph 
over  a  representative  of  unbelieving  and  apostate  Judaism,  and 
the  conversion  of  an  official  representative  of  Rome,  whose 
name  Avas  identical  with  his  own  apostolic  title." 

In  calling  himself  a  servant  (bondsman)  of  Jesus  Qhrist^  he 


20  ROMANS  I.  1. 

may  have  intended  either  to  declare  himself  the  dependant  and 
worshipper  of  Christ,  as  all  Christians  are  servants  (slaves)  of 
Christy  Eph.  vi.  6;  or  to  express  his  official  relation  to  the 
Church  as  the  minister  of  Christ.  This  is  the  more  probable 
explanation,  because,  in  the  Old  Testament  rrp^_  n?5  is  a  com- 
mon oflficial  designation  of  any  one  employed  in  the  immediate 
service  of  God,  Joshua  i.  1,  xxiv.  29,  Jer.  xxix.  19,  Isaiah 
xlii.  1 ;  and  because  in  the  New  Testament  we  find  the  same 
usage,  not  only  in  the  beginning  of  several  of  the  epistles,  as 
''Paul  and  Timothy,  the  servants  of  Jesus  Christ,"  Phil.  i.  1. 
"James,  the  servant  of  God  and  of  Jesus  Christ,"  James  i.  1. 
"Peter,  a  servant  and  apostle  of  Jesus  Christ,"  1  Peter  i.  1; 
but  also  in  other  cases  where  the  word  dodXo<;  is  interchanged  with 
dcdxovoz  minister.  Comp.  Col.  i.  7,  iv.  7,  12.  It  is,  therefore, 
a  general  official  designation  of  which,  in  the  present  case, 
apostle  is  the  specific  explanation.  "Apostolatus  ministerii  est 
species."  Calvin.  It  has  also  been  properly  remarked,  that 
as  the  expression,  servant  of  Christ,  implies  implicit  obedience 
and  subjection,  it  supposes  the  Divine  authority  of  the  Redeemer. 
That  is,  we  find  the  apostle  denying  that  he  was  the  servant  of 
men,  rejecting  all  human  authority  as  it  regards  matters  of  faith 
and  duty,  and  yet  professing  the  most  absolute  subjection  of 
conscience  and  reason  to  the  authority  of  Jesus  Christ. 

xX-JTO(;  dTrdaroko^,  called  an  apostle.  Paul  was  not  only  a 
servant  of  Christ,  but  by  Divine  appointment  an  apostle.  This 
idea  is  included  in  the  word  xXrjroc,  which  means  not  only 
called,  but  chosen,  appointed;  and  the  xXyjctk;,  or  vocation,  as 
well  of  believers  to  grace  and  salvation,  as  of  the  apostles  to 
their  office  is  uniformly  ascribed  to  God  or  Christ ;  see  Gal. 
i.  1,  1  Cor.  i.  1,  Tit.  i.  1,  Gal.  i.  15.  As  the  immediate  call  of 
Christ  was  one  of  the  essential  requisites  of  an  apostle,  Paul 
means  to  assert  in  the  use  of  the  word  xXtjtoi;  that  he  was 
neither  self-appointed  nor  chosen  by  men  to  that  sacred  office. 

The  word  6.7:60x0X0^  occurs  in  its  original  sense  of  messenger 
in  several  cases  in  the  New  Testament.  John  xiii.  16,  obx  save 
dnoaroXoi;  fxei^Mv  too  nifjupavroc;  ahxbv.  Phil.  ii.  25,  ^ E7ia(pf)6 
dcTOV  .  .  .  bfiiov  de  dTtoazoXov. .ComTp.  iv.  18.  In  2  Cor.  viii.  23, 
Paul  speaking  of  the  brethren  who  were  with  him,  calls  them 
drtooToXoc  kxxXYjaid)^ ;  zooziarcv  says  Chrysostom,  l)7tb  ixxXr^fftciu 


ROMANS  I.  1.  21 

7ztinp^k\)Ttc,.  Theophylact  adds,  xal  yztpoxovr^Mvxtz.  Our 
translators,  therefore,  are  doubtless  correct  in  rendering  this 
phrase,  messengers  of  the  churches.  As  a  strict  official  desig- 
nation, the  word  apostle  is  confined  to  those  men  selected  and 
commissioned  by  Christ  himself  to  deliver  in  his  name  the 
message  of  salvation.<  It  appears  from  Luke  vi.  13,  that  the 
Saviour  himself  gave  them  this  title.  "  And  when  it  was  day, 
he  called  his  disciples,  and  of  them  he  chose  twelve,  whom  also 
he  named  apostles."  If  it  be  asked,  why  this  name  was 
chosen?  it  is  perhaps  enough  to  say,  that  it  was  peculiarly 
appropriate.  It  is  given  to  those  who  were  sent  by  Christ  .^ 
to  perform  a  particular  service,  who  were  therefore  properly 
called  messengers.  There  is  no  necessity  to  resort  for  an 
explanation  of  the  term,  to  the  fact  that  the  word  h'^bffl  mes- 
senger, was  applied  sometimes  to  the  teachers  and  ministers  of 
the  synagogue,  sometimes  to  plenipotentiaries  sent  by  the  San- 
hedrim to  execute  some  ecclesiastical  commission. 

The  apostles,  then,  were  the  immediate  messengers  of  Christ, 
appointed  to  bear  testimony  to  what  they  had  .seen  and  heard. 
"Ye  also  shall  bear  witness,"  said  Christ,  speaking  to  the 
twelve,  "because  ye  have  been  with  me  from  the  beginning." 
John  XV.  26.  This  was  their  peculiar  office ;  hence  when 
Judas  fell,  one,  said  Peter,  who  has  companioned  with  us  all 
the  time  that  the  Lord  Jesus  went  in  and  out  among  us,  must  be 
ordained  to  be  a  witness  with  us  of  his  resurrection.  Acts  i.  21. 
To  be  an  apostle,  therefore,  it  was  necessary  to  have  seen 
Christ  after  his  resurrection,  1  Cor.  ix.  1,  and  to  have  a  A 
knowledge  of  his  life  and  doctrines  derived  immediately  from 
himself.  Without  this  no  man  could  be  a  witness,  he  would 
only  report  what  he  had  heard  from  others,  he  could  bear  no 
independent  testimony  to  what  he  himself  had  seen  and  heard. 
Christ,  therefore,  says  to  his  disciples,  after  his  resurrection, 
"Ye  shall  be  my  witnesses,"  Acts  i.  8,  and  the  apostles 
accordingly  constantly  presented  themselves  in  this -character. 
Acts  ii.  32,  iii.  15,  xiii.  31.  "  We  are  witnesses,"  said  Peter, 
speaking  of  himself  and  fellow-apostles,  "  of  all  things  which 
he  did,  both  in  the  land  of  Judea,  and  in  Jerusalem."  Acts 
X.  39.  When  Paul  was  called  to  be  an  apostle,  the  Saviour  said 
to  him.   "  I  have  appeared  unto  thee  for  this  purpose,  to  make 


22  ROMANS  I.  1. 

tliee  a  minister  and  a  witness  of  these  things  which  thou  hast 
seen,  and  of  those  things  in  the  which  I  will  appear  unto  thee." 
Acts  xxvi.  16.  We  accordingly  iSnd,  that  whenever  Paul  was 
called  upon  to  defend  his  apostleship,  he  strenuously  asserted 
that  he  was  appointed  not  of  men  nor  by  man,  but  by  Jesus 
Christ ;  and  as  to  his  doctrines,  that  he  meither  received  them 
of  man,  neither  was  he  taught  them,  but  by  revelation  of  Jesus 
Christ.     Gal.  i.  12. 

As  the  testimony  which  the  apostles  were  to  bear  related  to 
all  that  Jesus  had  taught  them,  it  was  by  preaching  the  gospel 
that  they  discharged  their  duty  as  witnesses.  Hence  Paul 
says,  "  Christ  sent  me  not  to  baptize  but  to  preach  the  gos- 
pel." 1  Cor.  i.  17.  To  the  elders  of  Ephesus  he  said,  "I 
count  not  my  life  dear  unto  me,  so  that  I  might  finish  my 
course  with  joy,  and  the  ministry  which  I  have  received  of  the 
Lord  Jesus,  to  testify  the  gospel  of  the  grace  of  God."  Acts 
XX.  24. 

To  give  authority  to  this  testimony  the  apostles  were  inspired, 
and  as  religioi:^^  teachers  infallible.  John  xiv.  26,  xvi.  18. 
They  had  the  power  of  working  miracles,  in  confirmation  of 
their  mission.  Matt.  x.  8,  and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  joassm. 
This  power  they  could  communicate  to  others  by  the  laying 
on  of  their  hands.  Acts  ix.  15,  17,  18,  xix.  6.  This  is 
what  is  meant  by  giving  the  Holy  Ghost,  for  the  apostles 
never  claimed  the  power  of  communicating  the  sanctifying 
influences  of  the  Spirit.  Nor  was  the  power  of  giving  the 
Spirit,  in  the  sense  above-mentioned,  peculiar  to  them,  for  we 
read  that  Ananias,  a  disciple,  was  sent  to  Paul  that  he  might 
receive  the  Holy  Ghost.  Acts  ix.  17.  The  apostles  seem  also 
to  have  had  the  gift  of  "  discerning  spirits,"  1  Cor.  xii.  10, 
and  of  remitting  sins.  John  xx.  23.  They  ordained  presbyters 
over  the  congregations  gathered  by  their  ministry,  Acts  xiv. 
23,  &c. ;  and  exercised  a  general  jurisdiction  over  the  churches. 
1  Cor.  V.  3—5,  2  Cor.  x.  6,  8,  11,  1  Tim.  i.  20.  The  apos- 
tles, therefore,  were  the  immediate  messengers  of  Jesus  Christ, 
sent  to  declare  his  gospel,  endued  with  the  Holy  Spirit,  render- 
ing them  infallible  as  teachers,  and  investing  them  with  mira- 
culous powers,  and  clothed  with  peculiar  prerogatives  in  the 
organization  and  government  of  the  Church. 


ROMANS  I.  2.  23 

It  is  in  explanation  of  his  apostolic  office,  and  in  the  further 
assertion  of  his  divine  commission  that  Paul  adds,  d<fcopc(Tfiivo:; 
ec<;  edayyeXcou  d-eou,  separated  unto  the  gospel  of  Crod.  \i(popiQ£iv 
is  to  limit  off,  to  separate,  to  select  from  among  others.  It  is  so 
used  in  Levit.  xx.  24,  26,  "I  am  the  Lord  your  God,  which 
have  separated  you  from  other  people."  In  the  same  sense,  in 
Gal.  i.  15,  "when  it  pleased  God,  who  separated  me  from  my 
mother's  womb;"  that  is,  who  singled  me  out,  or  chose  me.  It 
is  obvious,  therefore,  that  the  apostle  here  refers  to  his  appoint- 
ment by  God  to  his  office.  In  Acts  xiii.  2,  it  is  said,  "  Separate 
[d<fopiaare)  unto  me  Barnabas  and  Saul,"  where  a  separation 
not  to  the  ministry,  much  less  to  the  apostleship,  but  to  a  special 
mission  is  referred  to.  Paul's  designation  to  office  was  neither  l^ 
of  man,  nor  by  man.  Gal.  i.  1.  The  words  e/c  zhayykhov,  unto 
the  gospel,  express  the  object  to  which  he  was  devoted  when  thus 
separated  from  the  mass  of  his  brethren ;  it  was  to  preach  the 
gospel.  The  divine  origin  of  the  gospel  is  asserted  in  calling 
it  the  gospel  of  God.  It  is  the  glad  annunciation  which  God 
makes  to  men  of  the  pardon  of  sin,  of  restoration  to  his  favour, 
of  the  renovation  of  their  nature,  of  the  resurrection  of  the 
body,  and  of  eternal  life. 

Verse  2.  Which  he  promised  afore.  That  is,  the  gospel 
which  Paul  was  sent  to  preach,  was  the  same  system  of  grace 
and  truth,  which  from  the  beginning  had  been  predicted  and 
partially  unfolded  in  the  writings  of  the  Old  Testament.  The 
reason  why  the  apostle  here  adverts  to  that  fact  probably  was, 
that  one  of  the  strongest  proofs  of  the  divine  origin  of  the 
gospel  is  found  in  the  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament.  The 
advent,  the  character,  the  work,  the  kingdom  of  the  Messiah, 
are  there  predicted,  and  it  was  therefore  out  of  the  Scriptures 
that  the  apostles  reasoned,  to  convince  the  people  that  Jesus  is 
the  Christ;  and  to  this  connection  between  the  two  dispensa- 
tions they  constantly  refer,  in  proof  of  their  doctrines.  See 
eh.  iii.  21,  iv.  3,  ix.  27,  33,  x.  11,  20.  Comp.  Luke  xxiv.  44. 
John  xii.  16,  Acts  x.  43. 

Bg  his  prophets  in  the  Holy  Scriptures.  As  in  Scripture  the 
term  -Kpoiprjrrjz,  Heb.  js'^nj,  is  applied  to  any  one  who  spake  by 
inspiration  as  the  ambassador  of  God  and  the  interpreter  of  his 
will ;  npoipr^Tibv  here  includes  all  the  Old  Testament  writers, 


24  ROMANS  I.  3. 

whether  prophets  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  term,  or  teachers,  or 
historians.  Meyer  indeed  insists  that  the  line  of  the  prophets 
begins  with  Samuel,  according  to  Acts  iii.  24 — "  all  the  prophets 
from  Samuel,  and  those  who  follow  after,"  and  therefore  that 
the  earlier  wi'iters  of  the  Old  Testament  are  not  here  included. 
But  Moses  was  a  prophet,  and  what  is  here  expressed  by  the 
words  "his  prophets,"  is  explained  by  the  phrase  "the  law  and 
the  prophets,"  in  ch.  iii.  21. 

By  the  Holy  Scriptures  must  of  course  be  understood,  those 
writings  which  the  Jews  regarded  as  holy,  because  they  treated 
of  holy  things,  and  because  they  were  given  by  the  inspiration 
of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

Verse  3.  Concerning  his  Son.  These  words  are  either  to  be 
connected  with  euayj-iXcou,  the  gospel  concerning  his  Son;  or 
with  7Tpo£7T7jij£ckaTo,  wMch  he  promised  concerning  his  Son. 
The  sense  in  either  case  is  much  the  same.  As  most  com- 
mentators and  editors  regard  the  second  verse  as  a  parenthesis, 
they  of  course  adopt  the  former  construction ;  but  as  there  is 
no  necessity  for  assuming  any  parenthesis,  the  natural  gram- 
matical connection  is  with  TipoeTzrjfYeiXaTO.  The  personal  object 
of  the  ancient  promises  is  the  Son  of  God. 

It  is  a  well  known  scriptural  usage,  that  the  designations 
employed  in  reference  to  our  Lord  are  sometimes  applied  to 
him  as  a  historical  person,  God  and  man,  and  sometimes  exclu- 
sively to  one  or  the  other  of  the  two  natures,  the  divine  and 
human,  which  enter  into  the  constitution  of  the  theanthropos. 
Thus  the  term  Son  designates  the  Logos  in  all  those  passages 
in  which  he  is  spoken  of  as  the  Creator  of  all  things ;  at  other 
times  it  designates  the  incarnate  Logos;  as  when  it  is  said, 
"the  Son  shall  make  you  free."  Sometimes  the  same  term  is 
used  in  the  same  passage  in  reference  first  to  the  incarnate 
Word,  and  then  to  the  Word  as  the  second  person  of  the 
Trinity.  Thus  in  Heb.  i.  2,  it  is  said,  "  Hath  spoken  unto  us 
by  his  Son,  (the  historical  person,  Jesus  Christ,)  by  whom  (the 
eternal  Word)  he  made  the  worlds."  So  here,  "concerning  his 
Son,"  means  the  Son  of  God  as  clothed  in  our  nature,  the  Word 
made  flesh ;  but  in  the  next  clause,  "  declared  to  be  the  Son 
of  God,"  the  word  Son  designates  the  divine  nature  of  Christ. 
In  all  cases,  howev.er,  it  is  a  designation  implying  participation 


ROMANS  I.  3.  25 

of  the  divine  nature.  Christ  is  called  the  Son  of  God  because 
he  is  consubstantial  with  the  Father,  and  therefore  equal  to  him 
in  power  and  glory.  The  term  expresses  the  relation  of  the 
second  to  the  first  person  in  the  Trinity,  as  it  exists  from 
eternity.  It  is  therefore,  as  applied  to  Christ,  yot  a  term  of 
office,  nor  expressive  of  any  relation  assumed  in  time.  He  was 
and  is  the  Eternal  Son.  This  is  proved  from  John  i.  1 — 14, 
where  the  term  ulot;  is  interchanged  with  ?.6yo^.  It  was  the 
Son,  therefore,  who  in  the  beginning  was  with  God,  who  was 
God,  who  created  all  things,  in  whom  was  life,  who  is  the  light 
of  men,  who  is  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father.  In  John  v.  17 — 31, 
Christ  calls  himself  the  Son  of  God,  in  a  sense  which  made  him 
equal  to  the  Father,  having  the  same  power,  the  same  author- 
ity, and  a  right  to  the  same  honour.  In  John  x.  29 — 42,  Christ 
declares  God  to  be  his  Father  in  such,  a  sense  as  to  make  him- 
self God,  one  with  the  Father;  and  he  vindicates  his  claim  to 
this  participation  of  the  divine  nature  by  appealing  to  his 
works.  In  Col.  i.  13 — 17,  he  is  said  as  Son  to  be  the  image  of 
the  invisible  God,  the  exact  exemplar,  and  of  course  the  revealer 
of  the  Divine  nature;  the  Creator  of  all  things  that  are  in 
heaven  and  that  are  in  earth,  visible  and  invisible.  In  Heb. 
i.  4 — 6,  the  title  Son  is  adduced  as  proof  that  he  is  superior  to 
the  angels,  and  entitled  to  their  worship.  He  is  therefore 
called  God's  proper  Son,  i'dco<:,  Rom.  viii.  32,  (comp.  Trazepa 
idcov  ikeys  rbv  ^sovy  John  v.  18 ;)  his  own  Son,  kaozoo,  Rom. 
viii.  3;  his  only  begotten  Son,  fiovoyei^^,  John  i.  14,  18,  iii. 
16,  18,  1  John  iv.  9.  Hence  giving,  sending,  not  sparing  this 
Son,  is  said  to  be  the  highest  conceivable  evidence  of  the  love 
of  God,  John  iii.  16,  Rom.  viii.  32,  1  John  iv.  9.  The  histo- 
rical sense  of  the  terms  Xoyo^,  dxcov,  i>i6(;,  TzpcoToroxo!;,  as 
learned  from  the  Scriptures  and  the  usus  loquendi  of  the  apos- 
tolic age,  shows  that  they  must,  in  their  application  to  Christ, 
be  understood  of  his  Divine  nature. 

Wlio  ivas  made  of  the  seed  of  David.  As  ycvo/uai,  from  the 
assumed  theme  ysuo),  to  beget,  signifies  to  begin  to  be,  to  come 
into  existence,  it  is  often  used  in  reference  to  descent  or  birth, 
yzvoiJLtvov  ix  yu'jotxo^,  Gal.  iv.  4 ;  ^c  £ysv'^d--fjTS  rixva,  1  Pet. 
iii.  6.  "Made  of  the  seed  of  David,"  is  therefore  equivalent 
to  "born  of  the  seed  of  David."     That  the  Messiah  was  to  be 


26  ROMANS  I.  4. 

of  the  family  of  David,  was  predicted  in  the  Old  Testament,  and 
aflBrmed  in  the  New.  Isa.  xi.  1,  Jer.  xxiii.  5,  Matt.  xxii.  45, 
John  vii.  42,  Acts  xiii.  23. 

The  limitation  xaxa  adpxa,  according  to  the  flesh,  obviously 
implies  the  superhuman  character  of  Jesus  Christ.  Were  he  a 
mere  man,  it  had  been  enough  to  say  that  he  was  of  the  seed 
of  David ;  but  as  he  is  more  than  man,  it  was  necessary  to  limit 
his  descent  from  David  to  his  human  nature.  That  the  word 
adp^  here  means  human  nature  is  obvious  both  from  the  scrip- 
tural usage  of  the  word,  and  from  the  nature  of  the  case.  See 
John  i.  14,  Rom.  ix.  5,  1  Tim.  iii.  16,  1  John  iv.  2,  3.  It  is 
not  the  flesh  or  body,  as  opposed  to  the  soul,  but  the  human,  as 
opposed  to  the  divine  nature,  that  is  intended.  Neither  does 
ffdp^  here  mean  the  purely  material  element  with  its  organic 
life,  the  ow/jia  and  </^i>X'^^  *^  *^®  exclusion  of  the  nueb/jta,  or 
rational  principle,  according  to  the  Apollinarian  doctrine,  but 
the  entire  humanity  of  Christ,  including  "  a  true  body  and  a 
reasonable  soul."  This  is  the  sense  of  the  word  in  all  the 
parallel  passages  in  which  the  incarnation  is  the  subject.  As 
when  it  is  said,  "The  Word  was  made  flesh,"  John  i.  14;  or, 
"God  was  manifested  in  the  flesh,"  1  Tim.  iii.  16.  These  are 
explained  by  saying,  "He  was  found  in  fashion  as  a  man," 
Philip,  ii.  8.  The  word  therefore  includes  everything  which  con- 
stitutes the  nature  which  a  child  derives  from  its  progenitors. 

Verse  4.  Declared  to  he  the  Son  of  Grod.  The  word  bpi^tev 
means,  1.  To  limit,  or  bound,  and,  in  reference  to  ideas,  to 
define.  2.  To  determine.  Luke  xxii.  22,  Acts  ii.  23,  Heb. 
iv.  7.  3.  To  appoint,  or  constitute.  Acts  x.  42.  6  u)ptanevoQ 
brtb  Tou  &BOU  xpcrr^i;  (^iout(dv  xai  vtxpaiv.  Acts  xvii.  31.  This  last 
sense  is  given  by  some  few  commentators  to  bpca&ivroz  in  this 
passage.  The  apostle  would  then  say  that  Christ  was  appointed, 
or  constituted  the  Son  of  God,  by  or  after  his  resurrection. 
But  this  is  inconsistent  with  what  he  elsewhere  teaches,  viz. 
that  Christ  was  the  Son  of  God  before  the  foundation  of  the 
world.  Col.  i.  15.  As  shown  above,  Son  of  God  is  not  a 
title  of  office,  but  of  nature,  and  therefore  Christ  cannot  be  said 
to  have  been  constituted  the  Son  of  God.  This  interpretation 
also  would  involve  the  latter  part  of  the  verse  in  great  difficul- 
ties.    Hence  even  those  commentators  who  most  strenuously 


ROMANS  1.  4.  27 

insist  on  adhering  to  the  signification  of  words,  are  constrained, 
ex  necessitate  loci,  to  understand  bpiad-kvToci  here  declaratively, 
or  in  reference  to  the  knowledge  of  men.  That  is,  when 
Christ  is  said  to  be  constituted  the  Son  of  God,  we  are  not  to 
understand  that  he  became  or  was  made  Son,  but  was,  in  the 
view  of  men,  thus  determined.* 

The  Vulgate  reads,  qui  praedestinattis  est,  which  version 
is  followed  by  most  of  the  Roman  Catholic  interpreters,  and  by 
Grotius.  This  rendering  is  probably  founded  on  the  reading, 
Tcpoopia&evTOQ,  which,  although  old,  has  little  evidence  in  its 
favour.  Neither  is  the  sense  thus  expressed  suited  to  the  con- 
text. Christ  was  not  predestinated  to  be  the  Son  of  God.  He 
was  such  from  eternity. 

With  poiver ;  rooviavc,  says  Theophylact,  dnb  r^c  dom/iscoi: 
TMu  (T/^/ieciou  wv  iTzoUc ;  Theodoret  also  understands  these 
words  to  refer  to  the  miracles  which  Jesus,  by  the  power  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  wrought  in  confirmation  of  his  claim  to  be 
the  Son  of  God.  The  former  of  these  commentators  takes 
iv  dovdfxse,  xard.  Trueu^a,  i^  duaardaecoi;,  as  indicating  three 
distinct  sources  of  proof  of  the  Sonship  of  Christ.  He  was 
proved  by  his  miraculous  power,  by  the  Holy  Spirit  either  as 
given  to  him,  or  as  by  him  given  to  his  people,  (the  latter  is 
Theophylact's  view,)  and  by  his  resurrection,  to  be  the  Son 
of  God.  But  the  change  of  the  prepositions,  and  especially 
the  antithetical  structure  of  the  sentence,  by  which  xazd 
TtuBUjia  is  obviously  opposed  to  xard  adpxa,  are  decisive  objec- 
tions to  this  interpretation.  Others  propose  to  connect  in 
dovd[xu  with  ulou,  Son  in  power,  for  powerful  Son;  a  more 
common  and  more  natural  construction  is  to  connect  them  with 
dpca&iuzo^,  proved,  or  declared  with  power,  for  powerfully, 
eftectually  proved  to  be  the  Son  of  God.  He  was  declared 
with  emphasis  to  be  the  Son  of  God,  ita  ut  ejus  rei  plenissima  et 
certissima  sit  fides.  Winzer. 

*  Es  bleibt  daher,  says  De  Wette,  nichts  abrig,  als  den  Gedanken  des 
Bestimmen  modalisch,  d.  h.  in  Beziehung,  auf  die  menschliche  Erkenntniss,  zu 
nehmen.  Much  to  the  same  purpose  Fritzsche  says,  Fuerit  enim  Christus,  ut 
fuit,  ante  mundum  Dei  filius,  hoc  certe  apparet,  eum  inter  mortales  iis  demum 
rebus  talem  a  Deo  constitutum  esse,  sine  quibus  eum  esse  Dei  filium  homi- 
nes cognoscere  non  potuissent,  velut  reditu  ex  inferis. 


28  ROMANS  I.  4. 

According  to  the  Spirit  of  holiness.  As  just  remarked,  these 
words  are  in  antithesis  with  xaza  adpxa;  as  to  the  flesh  he  was 
the  Son  of  David,  as  to  the  Spirit  the  Son  of  God.  As  aa^o^ 
means  his  human  nature,  iivzufxa  can  hardly  mean  anything 
else  than  the  higher  or  divine  nature  of  Christ.  The  word 
Tivtofjia  may  be  taken  in  this  sense  in  1  Tim.  iii.  16,  i.8cxacaj&rj 
iv  TTueu/iau,  justified  hy  the  Spirit,  i.  e.  he  was  shown  to  be  just, 
his  claims  were  all  sustained  by  the  manifestations  of  his  divine 
nature,  i.  e.  of  his  divine  power  and  authority.  Heb.  ix.  14, 
oc  dca  Ttveufxazo^  actovcou,  who  with  an  eternal  Spirit  offered 
himself  unto  God.  1  Pet.  iii.  18  is  a  more  doubtful  passage.  The 
genitive  (ijuoawric.  is  a  qualification  of  Tivebfia,  Spirit  of  holiness; 
the  Spirit  whose  characteristic  is  holiness.  This  expression 
seems  to  be  here  used,  to  prevent  ambiguity,  as  Holy  Spirit  is 
appropriated  as  the  designation  of  the  third  person  of  the 
Trinity.  As  the  word  holy  often  means  august,  venerandus,  so 
kyccoauvq  expresses  that  attribute  of  a  person  which  renders  him 
worthy  of  reverence ;  7:vs:v[xa  b-ytuiauv-qz  is,  therefore,  Spiritus 
summe  venerandus,  the  d^eorrjc,  divine  nature,  or  Godhead, 
which  dwelt  in  Jesus  Christ ;  the  Logos,  who  in  the  beginning 
was  with  God,  and  was  God,  and  who  became  flesh  and  dwelt 
among  us.  That  ■Kve()[xa  does  not  here  mean  the  spiritual  state 
of  exaltation  of  Christ,  is  plain;  first,  because  the  word  is 
never  so  used  elsewhere;  and,  secondly,  because  it  is  inconsis- 
tent with  the  antithesis  to  xara  adpxa.  Those  who  understand 
the  phrase  "  Spirit  of  holiness"  to  refer  to  the  Holy  Spirit, 
either,  as  before  remarked,  suppose  that  the  apostle  refers 
to  the  evidence  given  by  the  Spirit  to  the  Sonship  of  Christ, 
hence  Calvin  renders  xara  Tcveuna  per  Spiritum;  or  they 
consider  him  as  appealing  to  the  testimony  of  the  Spirit  as 
given  in  the  Scriptures.  '  Christ  was  declared  to  be  the  Son 
of  God,  agreeably  to  the  Spirit.'  To  both  these  views,  how- 
ever, the  same  objection  lies,  that  it  destroys  the  antithesis. 

e^  duaardasco^  vexpcov,  is  rendered  by  Erasmus,  Luther,  and 
others,  after  the  resurrection  from  the  dead.  It  was  not  until 
Christ  had  risen  that  the  evidence  of  his  Sonship  was  complete, 
or  the  fulness  of  its  import  known  even  to  the  apostles.  But  it 
is  better  suited  to  the  context,  and  more  agreeable  to  the  Scrip- 
ture, to  consider  the  resurrection  itself  as  the  evidence  of  his 


ROMANS  I.  4.  29 

Sonship.  It  was  by  the  resurrection  that  he  was  proved  to  be 
the  Son  of  God.  "  God,"  says  the  apostle,  "will  judge  the  world 
in  righteousness  by  that  man  whom  he  hath  ordained,  whereof 
he  hath  given  assurance  unto  all,  in  that  he  hath  raised  him 
from  the  dead."  Acts  xvii.  31.  The  apostle  Peter  also  says, 
that  "  God  hath  begotten  us  to  a  lively  hope  by  the  resurrec- 
tion of  Jesus  Christ  from  the  dead."  1  Pet.  i.  3.  Comp.  iii.  21, 
Acts  xiii.  35,  xxvi.  23,  1  Cor.  xv.  20.  In  these  and  many 
other  passages  the  resurrection  of  Christ  is  represented  as  the 
great,  conclusive  evidence  of  the  truth  of  all  that  Christ  taught, 
and  of  the  validity  of  all  his  claims.  If  it  be  asked  how  the 
resurrection  of  Christ  is  a  proof  of  his  being  the  Son  of  God, 
it  may  be  answered,  first,  because  he  rose  by  his  own  power. 
He  had  power  to  lay  down  his  life,  and  he  had  power  to  take 
it  again.  John  x.  18.  This  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  fact 
taught  in  so  many  other  passages,  that  he  was  raised  by  the 
power  of  the  Father,  because  what  the  Father  does  the  Son 
does  likewise;  creation,  and  all  other  external  works,  are 
ascribed  indifferently  to  the  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit.  But  in 
the  second  place,  as  Christ  had  openly  declared  himself  to  be 
the  Son  of  God,  his  rising  from  the  dead  was  the  seal  of  God 
to  the  truth  of  that  declaration.  Had  he  continued  under  the 
power  of  death,  God  would  thereby  have  disallowed  his  claim 
to  be  his  Son ;  but  as  he  raised  him  from  the  dead,  he  publicly 
acknowledged  him ;  saying.  Thou  art  my  Son,  this  day  have  I 
declared  thee  such.  "  If  Christ  be  not  risen,  then  is  our  preach- 
ing vain,"  says  the  apostle,  "and  your  faith  is  also  vain.  But  now 
is  Christ  risen,  and  become  the  first  fruits  of  them  that  slept." 

Jesus  Christ  our  Lord.  These  words  are  in  apposition  with 
TOO  oloi)  al)Tou  of  the  third  verse;  "his  Son,  Jesus  Christ  our 
Lord."  All  the  names  of  Christ  are  precious  to  his  people. 
He  is  called  Jesus,  Saviour,  because  he  saves  his  people  from 
their  sins.  Matt.  i.  21.  The  name  Christ,  i.  e.  Messiah, 
Anointed,  connects  him  with  all  the  predictions  and  promises 
of  the  Old  Testament.  He  is  the  anointed  prophet,  priest,  and 
king,  to  whom  all  believing  eyes  had  been  so  long  directed,  and 
on  whom  all  hopes  centred.  He  is  xupco<;  i^fuou  our  Lord. 
This  word  indeed  is  often  used  as  a  mere  term  of  respect, 
equivalent  to  Sir,  but  as  it  is  employed  by  the  LXX.  as  the 


30  ROMANS  I.  5. 

common  substitute  of  Jehovah,  or  rather  as  the  translation  of 
"i3i"i»,  in  the  sense  of  supreme  Lord  and  possessor,  so  it  is  in 
the  New  Testament  applied  in  the  same  sense  to  Christ.  He  is 
our  Supreme  Lord  and  possessor.  We  belong  to  him,  and  his 
authority  over  us  is  absolute,  extending  to  the  heart  and  con- 
science as  well  as  to  the  outward  conduct ;  and  to  him  every 
knee  shall  bow  and  every  tongue  confess  that  he  is  Lord,  to  the 
glory  of  God  the  Father.  He,  then,'  who  in  this  exalted  sense 
is  our  Lord,  is,  as  to  his  human  nature,  the  Son  of  David,  and 
as  to  his  Divine  nature,  the  Son  of  God. 

Veese  5.  Through  whom  we  have  received  grace  and  apostle- 
ship.  As  it  was  of  the  utmost  importance  that  Paul's  authority 
as  an  apostle  should  be  acknowledged  in  the  Church,  he  here 
repeats  the  assertion  that  he  received  his  office  immediately 
from  Jesus  Christ,  whose  exalted  character  as  the  Son  of  God 
and  our  supreme  Lord  he  had  just  declared.  Though  8c  ob 
properly  means  through  whom,  by  whose  instrumentality,  the 
preposition  must  here  be  taken  in  a  more  general  sense  as  indi- 
cating the  source  from  whom.  Comp.  Gal.  i.  1,  dca  d^tou 
naxpbz.  Rom,  xi.  36,  1  Cor.  i.  9.  The  words  'fd.piv  xal  dTioqoX^v 
may  either  be  taken  together  and  rendered  the  favour  of  the 
apostleship,  or  each  word  may  be  taken  separately.  Then 
Xdpcz  refers  to  the  kindness  of  God  manifested  to  the  apostle 
in  his  conversion  and  vocation.  '  Through  whom  we  received 
grace,  favour  in  general,  and  specially,  the  apostleship.' 

Unto  the  obedience  of  faith.  These  words  express  the  object 
of  the  apostleship ;  mareax;  is  either  the  genitive  of  apposition, 
"  obedience  which  consists  in  faith;"  or  it  is  the  genitive  of  the 
source,  "obedience  which  flows  from  faith;"  or  it  is  the  geni- 
tive of  the  object,  "obedience  to  faith,"  i.  e.  to  the  gospel.  In 
favour  of  the  last  interpretation  reference  may  be  made  to 
2  Cor.  X.  5.  jy  bitaxor]  rou  Xpcarou ;  1  Pet.  i.  22,  )J  brcaxor]  ttjZ 
dhjd^e'taz,  obedience  to  the  truth.  See  Gal.  i.  23,  Acts  vi.  7,  Jude 
iii.  for  examples  of  the  use  of  Tziazci;  in  this  objective  sense.  The 
subjective  sense,  however,  of  the  word  TiiazK;  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment is  so  predominant  that  it  is  safest  to  retain  it  in  this  pas- 
sage. The  obedience  of  faith  is  that  obedience  which  consists  in 
faith,  or  of  which  faith  is  the  controlling  principle.  The  design 
of  the  apostleship  was  to  bring  all  nations  so  to  believe  in  Christ 


ROMANS  I.  6.  31 

the  Son  of  God  tliat  they  should  be  entirely  devoted  to  his  ser- 
vice. The  sense  is  the  same  if  mffzc;  be  taken  objectively,  un- 
derstood however  not  of  the  gospel,  but  of  the  inward  principle 
of  faith  to  which  the  nations  were  to  be  obedient.  Among  all 
nations.  The  apostles  were  not  diocesans  restricted  in  jurisdic- 
tion to  a  particular  territory.  Their  commission  was  general. 
It  was  to  all  nations.  If  these  words  are  connected  with  we  re- 
ceived, they  express  directly  the  extent  of  the  apostle's  mission, 
'We  have  received  a  mission  among  all  nations.'  If,  as  is  much 
more  natural  on  acccount  of  their  position,  they  are  connected 
with  the  immediately  preceding  words,  they  express  the  same 
idea  indirectly;  his  office  was  to  promote  obedience  to  the  faith 
among  all  nations.  For  his  name.  That  is  for  the  sake  of 
(pTvifj)  his  name  or  glory.  These  words  are  most  naturally 
connected  with  the  whole  preceding  verse,  and  express  the  final 
end  of  the  apostleship,  viz.  the  honour  of  Christ.  It  was  to 
promote  the  knowledge  and  glory  of  Christ  that  Paul  had 
received  his  office  and  laboured  to  make  the  nations  obedient  to 
the  gospel. 

Verse  6,  Among  lohom  are  ye  also.  The  apostle  thus  justi- 
fies his  addressing  the  Church  at  Rome  in  his  official  character. 
If  the  commission  which  he  had  received  extended  to  all  nations, 
he  was  not  transcending  its  limits  in  writing  as  an  apostle  to 
any  church,  though  it  had  not  been  founded  by  his  instrument- 
ality, nor  enjoyed  his  personal  ministry.  Called  of  Jesus 
Christ.  This  may  mean.  Those  whom  Christ  has  called.  But 
as  the  xXr^aci;,  or  vocation  of  believers,  is  generally  in  the  New 
Testament  referred  to  God,  the  meaning  probably  is,  The  called 
who  belong  to  Christ.  Qui  Dei  beneficio  estis  Jesu  Christi. 
Beza.  The  word  xXtjtoc:  is  never  in  the  epistles  applied  to  one 
who  is  merely  invited  by  the  external  call  of  the  gospel.  01 
xXrjToi,  the  called,  means  the  effectually  called ;  those  who  are 
so  called  by  God  as  to  be  made  obedient  to  the  call.  Hence 
the  xX-/jToi  are  opposed  to  those  who  receive  and  disregard  the 
outward  call.  Christ,  though  an  offence  to  the  Jews  and  Greeks, 
is  declared  to  be  [to'k;  xXrjTo2(;)  to  the  called  the  wisdom  and 
power  of  God.  1  Cor.  i.  24.  Hence,  too,  xXrjzoi  and  ixXsxroi 
are  of  nearly  the  same  import ;  xava  Ttpo&eacv  xX^roc,  Rom.  viii, 
28 ;  comp.  Rom.  ix.  11,  1  Cor.  i.  26,  27.    We  accordingly  find 


S2  ROMANS  I.  7. 

xXyjzoi  used  as  a  familial-  designation  of  believers,  as  in  Rev. 
xvii.  14,  ol  (JLET  auToi),  xXrjzol  xai  kxhxto'c  xac  TccazoL  See  Jude 
i.  1.  Comp,  Rom.  viii.  30,  ix.  24,  1  Cor.  i.  9,  vii.  17,  et  seq., 
Gal.  i.  15,  Eph.  iv.  1,  Col.  iii.  15,  1  Thess.  ii.  12,  v.  24, 
2  Tim.  i.  9.  In  these  and  in  many  other  passages,  the  verb 
xaXiu)  expresses  the  inward  efficacious  call  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Theophylact  remarks  that  the  word  xX^voi  is  applied  to  Chris- 
tians, since  they  are  drawn  by  grace,  and  do  not  come  of  them- 
selves. God,  as  it  were,  anticipates  them.  The  same  remark 
may  be  made  of  most  of  the  other  terms  by  which  believers  are 
designated.  They  all  more  or  less  distinctly  bring  into  view  the 
idea  of  the  agency  of  God  in  making  them  to  diflfer  from  others. 
They  are  called  kxXtxtol  ^eou.  Rom.  viii.  33,  Col.  iii.  12, 
1  Tim.  i.  1 ;  or  more  fully,  ixXzxzol  xaza  Tzpbyvioacv  d^eou^  1  Pet. 
i.  2 ;  -^yiaafiivot^  sanctified,  which  includes  the  idea  of  separa- 
tion, 1  Cor.  i.  1,  Jude  i.  1,  -upooptad-evxtz  xaza  Tipod^eacv  too 
d-tou,  Eph.  i.  11,  (Tto^opspoi,  1  Cor.  i.  18,  2  Cor.  ii.  15,  reza- 
•ffxsvoe  e/c  !l,ct)rjv  aicouiop,  Acts  xiii.  48. 

Verse  7.  To  all  who  are  in  Home.  These  words  are,  in 
sense,  connected  with  the  first  verse,  "Paul,  the  servant  of 
Jesus  Christ,  to  all  who  are  in  Rome."  Beloved  of  Cf-od.  This 
is  the  great  distinction  and  blessedness  of  believers,  they  are 
the  beloved  of  God.  They  are  not  so  called  simply  because,  as 
was  the  case  with  the  ancient  Israelites,  they  are  selected  from 
the  rest  of  the  world,  and  made  the  recipients  of  peculiar 
external  favours ;  but  because  they,  are  the  objects  of  that  great 
love  wherewith  he  hath  loved  those  whom,  when  they  were  dead 
in  sins,  he  hath  quickened  together  with  Christ,  Eph.  ii.  4,  5. 
They  are  the  elect  of  God,  holy  and  beloved.  Col.  iii.  12 ;  they 
are  brethren  beloved  of  the  Lord,  2  Thess.  ii.  13.  Called  to  be 
saints.  The  former  of  these  words  stands  in  the  same  relation 
to  the  latter  that  xX'/jzoz  does  to  d-TtoazoXo^  in  ver.  1,  called  to  he 
an  apostle^  called  to  he  saints.  It  is  one  of  those  designations 
peculiar  to  the  true  people  of  God,  and  expresses  at  once  their 
vocation,  and  that  to  which  they  are  called,  viz.  holiness.  The 
word  S-ycot;,  in  accordance  with  the  meaning  of  ffiinp  in  the  Old 
Testament,  signifies  clean,  pure  morally,  consecrated,  and  espe- 
cially as  applied  to  God,  Jioly,  worthy  of  reverence.  The  people 
of  Israel,  their  land,  their  temple,  &c.,  are  called  holy,  as  sepa- 


ROMANS  I.  7.  33 

rated  and  devoted  to  God.  The  term  d.ycoc  as  applied  to  the 
people  of  God  under  the  new  dispensation,  includes  this  idea. 
They  are  saints,  because  they  are  a  community  separated  from 
the  world  and  consecrated  to  God.  But  agreeably  to  the  nature 
of  the  Christian  dispensation,  this  separation  is  not  merely 
external;  believers  are  assumed  to  be  really  separated  from 
sin,  that  is,  clean,  pure.  Again,  as  the  impurity  of  sin  is, 
according  to  Scripture,  twofold,  its  pollution,  and  guilt  or  just 
liability  to  punishment,  so  the  words  xa&aipecv,  xad^api^^ecu, 
dyid^ecv,  which  all  mean  to  cleanse,  are  used  both  to  express  the 
cleansing  from  guilt  by  expiation,  and  from  pollution  by  the 
Holy  Spirit.  Sometimes  the  one  and  sometimes  the  other,  and 
often  both  of  these  ideas  are  expressed  by  the  words.  See 
John  XV.  2,  Heb.  x.  2,  for  the  use  of  xa&aipa) ;  Acts  xv.  9, 
Eph.  V.  26,  Tit.  ii.  14,  Heb.  ix.  14,  22,  1  John  i.  7,  for  the  use 
of  xa^apc^Q);  John  xvii.  19,  Acts  xxvi.  16,  1  Tim.  iv.  5,  Heb. 
ii.  11,  X.  10,  14,  29,  for  the  use  of  d-ycd^o).  Hence  Christians 
are  called  d.ycoc,  -^yiaaiikvot,  not  only  as  those  who  are  conse- 
crated to  God,  but  also  as  those  who  are  cleansed  both  by 
expiation,  and  by  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

"Novam  Mc  periodum  incipio,"  says  Beza,  "  adscripto  puncto 
post  d^'/ofc."  In  this  punctuation  he  is  followed  by  Knapp, 
Lachmann,  Fritzsche,  and  many  others.  The  sense  then  is, 
"Paul,  an  apostle — to  the  saints  in  Rome."  And  then  follows 
the  salutation,  "Grace  and  peace  to  you."  That  the  words 
jf(£/>rc  xax  dp-qvq  are  in  the  nominative,  and  the  introduction  of 
bplv  show  that  a  new  sentence  is  here  begun. 

Grace  be  to  you,  and  peace.  Xdpc<;  is  kindness,  and  espe- 
cially undeserved  kindness,  and  therefore  it  is  so  often  used  to 
express  the  unmerited  goodness  of  God  in  the  salvation  of  sin- 
ners. Very  frequently  it  is  used  metonymically  for  the  effect 
of  kindness,  that  is,  for  a  gift  or  favour.  Anything,  therefore, 
bestowed  on  the  undeserving  may  be  called  fjipt^.  In  this 
sense  Paul  calls  his  apostleship  X^piz,  Rom.  xii.  3,  Eph.  iii.  2,  8 ; 
and  all  the  blessings  conferred  on  sinners  through  Jesus  Christ, 
are  graces,  or  gifts.  It  is  in  this  sense  repentance,  faith,  love, 
and  hope  are  graces.  And  especially  the  influence  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  in  the  heart,  in  connection  with  the  gift  of  the  Son,  the 
greatest  of  God's  free  gifts  to  men,  is  with  peculiar  propriety 
3 


34  ROMANS  I.  8. 

called  xdpci;,  or  grace.  Such  is  its  meaning  in  1  Cor.  xv.  10, 
2  Cor.  viii.  1,  Rom.  xii.  6,  Gal.  i.  15,  and  in  many  other  pas- 
sages. In  the  text,  it  is  to  be  taken  in  the  comprehensive 
sense  in  which  it  is  used  in  the  apostolic  benediction,  for  the 
favour  and  love  of  God  and  Christ.  The  word  tlprjvr^^  which 
is  so  often  united  with  yj^ptc.  in  the  formulas  of  salutation,  is 
used  in  the  wide  sense  of  the  Hebrew  word  Qibffi,  well-being, 
prosperity,  every  kind  of  good.  Grace  and  peace  therefore 
include  everything  that  we  can  desire  or  need,  the  favour  of 
God,  and  all  the  blessings  that  favour  secures.  "Nihil  prius 
optandum,"  says  Calvin,  "quam  ut  Deum  propitium  habeamus ; 
quod  designatur  per  gratiam.  Deinde,  ut  ab  eo  prosperitas 
et  successus  omnium  rerum  fluat,  qui  significatur  Pacis  voca- 
bulo." 

From  Grod  our  Father,  and  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  This 
association  of  the  Father  and  Christ  as  equally  the  object  of 
prayer,  and  the  source  of  spiritual  blessings,  is  a  conclusive 
proof  that  Paul  regarded  Christ  as  truly  God.  God  is  called 
our  Father,  not  merely  as  the  author  of  our  existence,  and  the. 
source  of  every  blessing,  but  especially  as  reconciled  towards 
us  through  Jesus  Christ.  The  term  expresses  the  peculiar 
relation  in  which  he  stands  to  those  who  are  his  sons,  who 
have  the  spirit  of  adoption,  and  are  the  heirs  or  recipients 
of  the  heavenly  inheritance.  Jesus  Christ  is  our  Lord,  as 
our  supreme  Ruler,  under  whose  care  and  protection  we  are 
placed,  and  through  whose  ministration  all  good  is  actually 
bestowed. 

I  Verse  8.  '  From  this  verse  to  the  end  of  the  17th,  we  have 
fthe  general  introduction  to  the  epistle.  It  has  the  usual 
characteristics  of  the  introductory  portions  of  the  apostle's 
letters.  It  is  commendatory.  It  breathes  the  spirit  of  love 
towards  his  brethren,  and  of  gratitude  and  devotion  towards 
God;  and  it  introduces  the  reader  in  the  most  natural  and 
appropriate  manner  to  the  great  doctrines  which  he  means  to 
exhibit.  First,  I  thank  my  Grod.  The  words  Tzp&rov  ptiv 
imply  an  enumeration,  which  however  is  not  carried  out. 
Comp.  1  Cor.  xi.  18,  2  Cor.  xii.  12,  and  other  cases  in  which 
the  apostle  begins  a  construction  which  he  does  not  continue. 
My  God,  that  is,  the  God  to  whom  I  belong,  whom  I  serve, 


ROMANS  I.  9.  36 

and  who  stands  to  me  in  the  relation  of  God,  as  father,  friend, 
and  source  of  all  good.  "  I  will  be  to  them  a  God,  and  they 
shall  be  to  me  a  people,"  is  the  most  comprehensive  of  all  pro- 
mises. Through  Jesus  Christ,  are  not  to  be  connected  with  the 
immediately  preceding  words,  '  My  God,  through  Jesus  Christ ;' 
but  with  thyapiazio,  'I  thank  God,  through  Jesus  Christ.' 
This  form  of  expression  supposes  the  mediation  of  Christ,  by 
whom  alone  we  have  access  to  the  Father,  and  for  whose  sake 
alone  either  our  prayers  or  praises  are  accepted.  See  Rom. 
vii.  25,  Eph.  v.  20,  "  Giving  thanks  always  for  all  things  unto 
God  and  the  Father,  in  the  name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ," 
And  Col.  iii.  17,  "Whatsoever  ye  do  in  word  or  deed,  do  all  in 
the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  giving  thanks  to  God  and  the 
Father  by  him."  Heb.  xiii.  15,  "By  him  therefore  let  us 
offer  the  sacrifice  of  praise  to  God."  All  this  is  in  accordance 
with  the  command  of  Christ,  John  xiv.  13,  and  xvi.  23,  24, 
"Hitherto  have  ye  asked  nothing  in  my  name:  ask,  and  ye 
shall  receive."  Such  then  being  the  clear  doctrine  of  the 
Bible,  that  in  all  our  approaches  to  God  in  prayer  or  praise, 
we  must  come  in  the  name  of  Christ,  that  is,  in  him,  referring 
to  him  as  the  ground  of  our  acceptance,  there  is  no  need  of  the 
various  forced  interpretations  of  the  words  in  the  text,  which 
have  been  given  by  those  who  are  unwilling  to  admit  the  idea 
of  such  mediation  on  the  part  of  Christ.  For  you  all.  Several 
manuscripts  have  nspi  instead  of  vnep^  which  is  probably  a 
correction.  The  sense  is  the  same.  The  special  ground  of  the 
apostle's  thankfulness  is  expressed  in  the  following  clause: 
That  your  faith  is  spoken  of  throughout  the  whole  world. 
Their  faith  was  of  such  a  character  as  to  excite  general  atten- 
tion and  remark.  Not  only  the  fact  that  the  Romans  believed, 
but  that  their  faith  was  of  such  a  character  as  to  be  everywhere 
spoken  of,  was  recognized  by  the  apostle  as  cause  of  gratitude 
to  God.     God  therefore  is  the  giver  of  faith. 

Verse  9.  In  confirmation  of  his  declaration  of  gratitude 
for  their  conversion,  and  for  the  eminence  of  their  faith,  Paul 
appears  to  his  constant  remembrance  of  them  in  his  prayers. 
For  Grod  is  my  witness.  This  reverend  appeal  to  God  as  the 
searcher  of  hearts,  is  not  uncommon  in  the  apostle's  writings. 
2  Cor.  i.  23,  Gal.  i.  20,  Philip,  i.  8.     It  is  an  act  of  worship, 


36  ROMANS  I.  10. 

a  devout  recognition  of  God's  omnipresence  and  omniscience. 
Whom  I  serve.  The  word  Xarptuco  is  in  the  New  Testament 
always  used  of  religious  service,  either  as  rendered  to  God  or  to 
creatures — '  Who  worship  and  serve  the  creature  more  than  the 
Creator,'  chap.  i.  25.  This  service  may  consist  either  in  worship, 
or  in  the  performance  of  external  duties  of  a  religious  nature. 
The  service  of  which  Paul  here  speaks  is  characterized  in  the 
following  clause ;  in  my  spirit.  This  is  opposed  at  once  to  an 
insincere,  and  to  a  mere  external  service.  In  the  gospel  of  his 
Son.  That  is,  it  was  a  service  rendered  in  preaching  the 
gospel.  The  priests  served,  iMrpeucrav,  when  performing  the 
duties  of  their  office ;  and  Paul  served  in  performing  the  duties 
of  an  apostle.  The  gospel  of  his  Son,  may  mean  either  the 
gospel  concerning  his  Son,  or  which  his  Sou  himself  taught. 
The  former,  perhaps,  is  more  in  accordance  with  the  use  of  this 
and  similar  phrases,  as,  'gospel  of  the  kingdom,'  'gospel  of  the 
grace  of  God,'  &c.  That  I  constantly  make  merition  of  you. 
It  is  plain,  from  the  occurrence  of  the  word  deojuevoc:  in  the 
next  verse,  and  from  the  use  of  this  expression  in  other  places, 
Philip,  i.  3,  1  Thess.  i.  2,  that  Paul  here  refers  to  his  remem- 
bering the  Roman  Christians  in  his  prayers,  and  not  to  his 
bearing  them  in  his  mind,  or  talking  about  them.  The  particle 
6j^  may  be  connected  with  ddiaXecTtrcot;,  how  uninterruptedly; 
or  with  the  clause,  '  God  is  my  witness  that,'  &c.  Comp.  Acts 
X.  28,  1  Thess.  ii.  10. 

Verse  10.  I  make  mention  of  you,  always  in  my  prayers 
praying  {ee  7ra>c)  if  possibly,  if  it  may  be,  expressing  the  sub- 
mission to  the  will  of  God  with  which  the  apostle  urged  his 
request.  7j8rj  Ttovi,  now  at  last,  as  though  he  had  long  looked 
forward  with  desire  to  what  there  was  now  a  prospect  of  his 
seeing  accomplished.  I  may  be  so  happy,  by  the  will  of  Crod, 
to  come  to  you.  Ebodouv  is,  to 'lead  in  the  right  way,  to  pros- 
per one's  journey.  Gen.  xxiv.  48,  and  figuratively,  to  prosper, 
1  Cor.  xvi.  2,  3  John  2.  In  the  passive  voice,  it  is,  to  be 
prospered,  successful,  favoured.  In  the  present  case,  as  Paul 
had  neither  commenced  his  journey,  nor  formed  any  immediate 
purpose  to  undertake  it,  see  chap.  xv.  25 — 29,  his  prayer  was 
not  that  his  journey  might  be  prosperous,  but  that  he  might  be 
permitted  to  undertake  it ;  that  his  circumstances  should  be  so 


ROMANS  I.  11.  37 

favourably  ordered  that  he  might  be  able  to  execute  his  long 
cherished  purpose  of  visiting  Rome.  Knowing,  however,  that 
all  things  are  ordered  of  God,  and  feeling  that  his  own  wishes 
should  be  subordinated  to  the  Divine  will,  he  adds,  by  the  will 
of  Grod;  which  is  equivalent  to.  If  it  be  the  will  of  God. 
'Praying  continually,  that,  if  it  be  the  will  of  God,  I  may  be 
prospered  to  come  unto  you.' 

Verse  11.  Why  the  apostle  was  anxious  to  visit  Rome,  he 
states  in  this  verse.  He  desired  to  see  them,  not  merely  for 
his  own  gratification,  but  that  he  might  confer  some  spiritual 
gift  upon  them,  which  would  tend  to  strengthen  their  faith. 
For  I  long  to  see  you,  that  I  may  impart  (jxtzadio  share  tvith 
you)  some  spiritual  gift.  By  spiritual  gift  is  not  to  be  under- 
stood a  gift  pertaining  to  the  soul  in  distinction  from  the  body, 
but  one  derived  from  the  Spirit.  The  gifts  of  which  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  the  author,  include  not  only  those  miraculous  endow- 
ments of  which  such  frequent  mention  is  made  in  the  Epistle  to 
the  Corinthians,  and  the  ordinary  gifts  of  teaching,  exhorta- 
tion, and  prophesying,  1  Cor.  xii.,  but  also  those  graces  which 
are  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit.  The  extraordinary  gifts  were 
communicated  by  the  imposition  of  the  apostles'  hands,  Acts 
viii.  17,  xix.  6,  and  therefore  abounded  in  churches  founded  by 
the  apostles,  1  Cor.  i.  7,  Gal.  iii.  5.  As  the  church  at  Rome 
was  not  of  this  number,  it  has  been  supposed  that  Paul  was 
desirous  of  conferring  on  the  Roman  Christians  some  of  those 
miraculous  powers  by  which  the  gospel  was  in  other  places 
attended  and  confirmed.  The  following  verses,  however,  are 
in  favour  of  giving  the  phrase  here  a  wider  signification.  Any 
increase  of  knowledge,  of  grace,  or  of  power,  was  a  ydpcafxa 
TtvBUfxarexov  in  the  sense  here  intended.  In  order  that  ye  may 
he  strengthened.  This  includes  not  only  an  increase  of  con- 
fidence in  their  belief  of  the  gospel,  but  an  increase  of  strength 
in  their  religious  feelings,  and  in  their  purpose  and  power  of 
obedience.  Comp.  1  Thess.  iii.  2:  I  sent  Timothy — "to  estab- 
lish you,  and  to  comfort  you  concerning  your  faith."  And 
2  Thess.  ii.  17,  "Now  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  comfort  your 
hearts,  and  stablish  you  in  every  good  word  and  work.''  And 
the  apostle  prays  that  the  Ephesians  might  be  strengthened 
as  to  the  inner  man. 


38  ROMANS  I.  12. 

Verse  12.  That  is,  that  I  may  he  comforted  among  you. 
This  is  obviously  intended  to  be  an  explanation  or  correction 
of  what  precedes.  He  had  desired  to  see  them,  in  order  that 
he  might  do  them  good ;  but  this  was  not  his  whole  object,  he 
hoped  to  receive  benefit  himself.  As  to  the  grammatical 
construction,  the  infinitive  aofmapaxXrj&y^vac  may  depend  on 
ijT-fipiy&rivax.  The  sense  would  then  be,  'That  you  may  be 
strengthened,  that  I  may  be  comforted.'  Or  the  one  infinitive 
is  coordinate  with  the  other;  then  both  depend  on  the  tW 
fxeradM  of  ver.  10,  '  That  I  may  impart  some  spiritual  gift  to 
you,  in  order  that  you  may  be  strengthened ;  that  is,  that  I 
may  be  comforted  together  with  you.'  This  seems  the  most 
natural  construction ;  yet  as  Paul  expected  to  be  refreshed  by' 
their  faith,  and  not  by  his  giving  them  spiritual  gifts,  the  sense 
seems  to  require  that  aoixliapaxk/j&rjvm  should  depend  on  the 
first  words  of  ver.  10,  '  I  desire  to  see  you,  that  I  may  impart 
(fva  fusrado))  some  spiritual  gift  to  you ;  that  is,  that  I  may  be 
comforted  [ao/ji7tapaxXYj&7jvai),'  &c.  It  is  not  a  valid  objection  to 
this  interpretation,  that  it  supposes  a  change  of  the  construe 
tion  from  the  subjunctive  to  the  infinitive.  A  similar  change 
occurs  (probably)  in  ch.  ix.  22,  23;  and  much  greater  irregu- 
larities are  not  unfrequent  in  the  New  Testament. 

The  word  TvapaxaXsco  is  used  in  such  various  senses,  that  it  is 
not  easy  to  determine  what  precise  meaning  should  be  attached 
to  it  here.  It  signifies  to  call  near,  to  invite.  Acts  xxviii.  20, 
to  call  upon,  and  more  generally  to  address,  either  for  instruc- 
tion, admonition,  exhortation,  confirmation,  or  consolation. 
Our  translators  and  the  majority  of  commentators  choose  the 
last  mentioned  sense,  and  render  aupTcapaxXrj&rjva:  (ipe)  that  I 
may  be  comforted.  This  is  probably  too  narrow.  The  word 
expresses  all  that  excitement  and  strengthening  of  faith  and 
pious  feeling,  as  well  as  consolation,  which  is  wont  to  flow  from 
the  communion  of  saints.  This  appears  from  the  context,  and 
especially  from  the  following  clause,  did  r^c  i^  dUijXoii; 
■niaTEox;,  bpCov  re  xal  ipou,  through  our  mutual  faith,  as  well 
yours  as  mine.  The  faith  of  the  Romans  would  not  only  com- 
fort, but  strengthen  the  apostle  ;  and  his  faith  could  not  fail  to 
produce  a  like  effect  on  them.  '  Tptov  re  xai  epou  are  the 
explanation  of  the  preceding  kv  dkkjloa;,  and  should  therefore 


ROMANS  I.  13,  14.  39 

be  in  the  dative.  Fritsche  refers  to  Luke  i.  55,  for  a  similar 
case  of  variation  in  the  construction. 

Verse  13.  /  would  not  have  you  ignorant,  brethren;  a  mode 
of  expression  which  the  apostle  often  adopts,  when  he  would 
assure  his  readers  of  anything,  or  call  their  attention  to  it  par- 
ticularly. That  oftentimes  I  purposed  to  come  unto  you.  In 
chap.  XV.  23,  he  states  that  he  had  cherished  this  purpose  for 
many  years.  And  was  hindered  until  now.  Our  version  ren- 
ders xai  adversatively  hut.  This  is  objected  to  as  unnecessary, 
especially  as  xai  often  introduces  a  parenthesis ;  and  such  is 
this  clause,  because  the  following  7va  must  depend  on  npoe&ejir^v 
of  the  preceding  clause.  As  in  the  fifteenth  chapter  the  apos- 
tle says,  that  having  no  more  place  in  the  countries  around 
Greece,  he  was  ready  to  visit  Rome,  it  is  probable  that  the 
hindering  to  which  he  here  refers,  was  the  incessant  calls  for 
apostolic  labour,  Avhich  left  no  time  at  his  command.  A^,  how- 
ever, his  course  seems  to  have  been  under  the  guidance  of  a 
special  providence,  Acts  xvi.  6,  7,  9,  it  may  be  that  the  Spirit 
who  had  forbidden  his  preaching  in  Asia,  had  hitherto  forbidden 
his  visiting  Rome.  That  I  may  have  some  fruit  among  you,  as 
among  other  gentiles.  KapTibv  lyztv  is  to  have  profit,  or  advan- 
tage. See  chap.  vi.  21,  22.  The  profit,  however,  which  Paul 
desired,  was  the  fruit  of  his  ministry,  the  conversion  or  edifica- 
tion of  those  to  whom  he  preached. 

Verse  14.  Both  to  G-reeks  and  barbarians,  to  the  wise  and 
to  the  unwise,  I  am  debtor.  That  is,  I  am  under  obligation  (to 
preach)  to  all  classes  of  men.  His  commission  was  a  general 
one,  confined  to  no  one  nation,  and  to  no  particular  class. 
Greeks  and  barbarians,  mean  all  nations;  wise  and  unwise, 
mean  all  classes.  Bdp6apo^  means  properly  a  foreigner,  one 
of  another  language,  1  Cor.  xiv.  11.  Greeks  and  barbarians, 
therefore,  is  equivalent  to  Greeks  and  not  Greeks,  all  nations. 
As  the  Greeks  however  excelled  other  nations  in  civilization, 
the  word  came  to  signify  rude,  uncultivated;  though  even  by 
later  writers  it  is  often  used  in  its  original  sense,  and  not  as  a 
term  of  reproach.  The  apostle  distinguishes  men  first  as 
nations,  Greeks  and  not  Greeks,  and  secondly  as  to  culture, 
wise  and  unwise.  The  Romans,  whose  city  was  called  "an 
epitome  of  the  world,"  belonged  exclusively  neither  to  the  one 


40  ROMANS  I.  15,  16. 

class  nor  to  the  other.  Some  were  wise  and  some  unwise, 
some  Greeks  and  some  barbarians. 

Verse  15.  And  so,  or  hence.  That  is,  since  I  am  bound  to 
all  men,  Greeks  and  barbarians,  I  am  ready  to  preach  to  you, 
who  are  at  Rome.  The  clause,  to  xav  tfik  npo&OfjLOv,  admits  of 
different  interpretations.  According  to  the  English  version,  to 
xar  ifie  must  be  taken  together;  npo&ofxou  is  taken  as  a  sub- 
stantive, and  made  the  nominative  to  iazi.  Hence,  as  much  as 
is  in  me,  (or,  as  far  as  I  am  concerned,)  there  is  a  readiness, 
i.  e.  I  am  ready.  Thus  Calvin,  "Itaque,  quantum  in  me  est, 
paratus  sum."  This  gives  a  good  sense,  and  is  specially  suited 
to  the  context,  as  it  renders  prominent  Paul's  dependence  and 
submission.  He  did  not  direct  his  own  steps.  As  far  as  he 
was  concerned,  he  was  willing  to  preach  in  Rome ;  but  whether 
he  should  do  so  or  not,  rested  not  with  him,  but  with  God.  A 
second  explanation  makes  to  xut  ifie  the  subject  of  the  sen- 
tence, and  npo&ofiov  the  predicate.  'What  is  in  me  is  ready.' 
Thus  Beza,  "  Quicquid  in  me  situm  est,  id  promptum  est."  Or, 
as  Beza  also  proposes,  to  xaT  i/us  may  be  taken  as  a  peri- 
phrase  for  kyo),  and  the  clause  be  translated,  "  Promptus  sum 
ego."  But  it  is  denied  that  such  a  periphrase  for  the  personal 
pronoun  ever  occurs ;  to.  OfiSTepa  for  (3/i£?c,  and  to.  i/id  for  iyco, 
to  which  Beza  refers,  are  not  parallel.  The  third  explanation, 
refers  to  to  Trpo^u/uou,  and  makes  xaT  ifii  equal  to  kjuod,  '  My 
readiness,  or  desire  is.'  Comp.  Eph.  i.  15,  ty^v  xad-'  vpaz 
maTcu,  your  faith;  Acts  xvii.  28.  tojv  xaff'  bfjiai;  tiocy^twv, 
xviii.  15,  vofioo  too  xad-'  o/idc;.  To  preach  the  gospel.  The 
verb  euayyeXcaaadai  is  commonly  followed  by  some  word  or 
phrase  expressing  the  subject  of  the  message — kingdom  of  God, 
gospel,  word  of  God,  Christ.  In  writing  to  Christians,  who 
knew  what  the  glad  tidings  were,  the  apostles  often,  as  in  the 
present  case,  use  the  word  absolutely  so  that  the  word  by 
itself  means,  to  preach  the  gospel,  &c.  See  ch.  xv.  20,  Acts 
xiv.  T,  Gal.  iv.  13. 

Verse  16.  For  I  am  not  ashamed  of  the  gospel  of  Christ.* 
This  he  assigns  as  the  reason  why  he  was  ready  to  preach  even 

*  The  words  tou  X^o-toD  are  omitted  in  the  MSS.  A.  B.  C.  D.  E.  G.  17.  67.  in 
many  of  the  versions  and  Fathers,  and  are  rejected  by  Mill,  Bengel,  Griesbach, 
Lachmanu,  Tischcndorf,  and  others.  They  are  found  in  the  Complutensian 
text,  auU  are  defended  by  Wetstein  and  Matthaei. 


ROMANS  I.  16.  41 

at  Rome.  To  the  wise  of  this  world  the  gospel  was  foolishness, 
1  Cor.  i.  23,  yet  Paul  was  not  ashamed  of  it,  but  was  ready 
among  the  wise  and  unwise  to  preach  Christ  and  him  crucified. 
The  reason  of  this  regard  for  the  gospel  is  stated  in  the  follow- 
ing clause:  For  it  is  the  poiver  of  Grod  unto  salvation.  By 
duvafici;  dsou,  some  understand  great  power,  in  accordance  with 
an  assumed  Hebrew  idiom,  agreeably  to  which  'mountains  of 
God'  mean  great  mountains,  'wind  of  God'  great  wind,  'zeal 
of  God'  great  zeal,  &;c.  But  the  existence  of  such  an  idiom  in 
the  Hebrew  is  very  doubtful,  and  its  application  to  this  passage 
is  unnatural  and  unnecessary.  Others  make  deou  a  mere  quali- 
fying genitive,  'power  of  God,'  meaning  'divinely  powerful.' 
Beza's  explanation  is,  "Organon  Dei  vere  potens  et  efficax." 
The  gospel  is  then  declared  to  be  that  through  which  God  exer- 
cises his  power.  Most  commonly  dsou  is  taken  as  the  genitive 
of  the  Author,  and  power  of  God  is  made  to  mean  power  derived 
from  God.  There  are  two  things  then  asserted  of  the  gospel, 
first  that  it  is  powerful,  and  secondly  that  it  is  from  God.  Comp. 
1  Cor.  i.  18,  24.  The  main  idea,  however,  is  that  expressed  by 
Beza,  The  gospel  is  that  in  which  God  works,  which  he  renders 
efficacious — e/c  ooDVTjpiav,  unto  salvation.  That  is,  it  is  effica- 
cious to  save.  The  nature  of  the  salvation  here  intended  is  to 
be  learned  from  the  nature  of  the  gospel.  It  is  deliverance 
from  sin  and  its  punishment,  and  admission  into  eternal  life 
and  blessedness.  This  is  what  no  means  of  man's  devising,  no 
efibrts  of  human  wisdom  or  human  power  could  efi"ect  for  any 
human  being.  The  gospel  efiects  it  Ttavvl  zto  neaveuovTi,  for 
every  one  that  believes.  Emphasis  must  be  laid  on  both  the 
members  of  this  clause.  The  gospel  is  thus  efficacious  to  every 
one,  without  distinction  between  Jew  and  gentile,  Greek  or  bar- 
barian, wise  or  unwise ;  and  it  is  efficacious  to  every  one  that 
believes,  not  to  every  one  who  is  circumcised,  or  baptized,  or 
who  obeys  the  law,  but  to  every  one  who  believes,  that  is,  who 
receives  and  confides  in  Jesus  Christ  as  he  is  offered  in  the 
gospel.  We  have  here  the  two  great  doctrines  set  forth  in  this 
epistle.  First,  salvation  is  by  faith ;  and  secondly,  it  is  univer- 
sally applicable,  to  the  Greek  as  well  as  to  the  Jew.  The  faith 
of  which  the  apostle  here  speaks  includes  a  firm  persuasion 
of  the  truth,  and  a  reliance  or  trust  on  the  object  of  faith. 


42  ROMANS  I.  16. 

Sometimes  the  one,  sometimes  the  other  of  these  ideas  is 
expressed  by  the  word,  and  very  often  both  are  united.  The 
meaning  of  the  term  is  not  to  be  determined  so  much  by  philo- 
sophical analysis  as  by  scriptural  usage.  For  the  question  is 
not  what  is  the  abstract  nature  of  the  act  of  believing,  philoso- 
phically considered,  but  what  act  or  state  of  mind  is  expressed 
by  the  words  Triareuseu  and  Ttcaui;  in  the  various  constructions 
in  which  they  occur.  It  is  rare  indeed  that  the  state  of  mind 
expressed  by  any  word  is  so  simple  as  not  to  admit  of  being 
resolved  into  various  elements.  The  exercise  expressed  by  the 
word  love,  for  example,  includes  the  perception  of  agreeable 
qualities  in  its  object,  a  judgment  of  the  mind  as  to  their 
nature,  a  delight  in  them,  and  a  desire  for  their  enjoyment. 
And  these  differ  specifically  in  their  nature,  according  to  the 
nature  of  the  thing  loved.  It  is  not  to  any  one  of  these 
elements  of  the  complex  affection  that  the  word  love  is  applied, 
but  to  the  state  of  mind  as  a  whole.  So  also  with  the  word 
faith,  the  exercise  which  it  expresses  includes  a  perception  of 
its  object  and  its  qualities,  that  is,  it  includes  knowledge; 
secondly,  an  assent  of  the  mind  to  the  truth  of  the  thing 
believed,  and  very  often  a  reliance  or  trust  on  the  object  of 
faith.  Assent  is  therefore  but  one  of  the  elements  of  saving 
faith,  that  is,  it  is  but  one  of  the  constituents  of  that  state 
of  mind  which,  in  a  multitude  of  cases,  is  in  the  Bible  expressed 
by  the  word.  And  as  the  great  object  of  interest  to  Christians 
is  not  a  philosophical  definition  of  a  word,  but  a  knowledge  of 
the  sense  in  which  it  is  used  in  the  word  of  God,  we  must  recur 
to  the  usage  of  the  Scriptures  themselves  to  determine  what 
that  faith  is  which  is  connected  with  salvation. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  mareuecv  is  often  used  to  express 
mere  assent.  It  means — to  receive  as  true,  to  be  persuaded  of 
the  truth  of  anything.  Hence  ttccftk;  is  persuasion  of  the  truth. 
When  mazsueiu  has  this  simple  meaning,  it  is  commonly  fol- 
lowed by  the  accusative,  as  in  1  Cor.  xi.  18,  John  xi.  26;  or 
by  the  dative,  Mark  xvi.  13,  oude  ixeivocQ  imareuffau,  John 
v.  46;  or  by  on,  Mark  xi.  23,  Rom.  x.  9.  Yet  in  these  cases 
the  word  often  expresses  confidence  or  trust,  as  well  as  assent ; 
TzcffTsusiu  6sa)  is  in  many  connections,  to  confide  in  God;  as 
Acts  xxvii.  25,  ncazsuio  yap  z(p  deaj  on  ourco^  iazM. 


ROMANS  I.  16.  43 

When  Ttiareoeiv  is  followed  by  ini  with  an  accusative,  as  in 
Rom.  iv.  5,  maztuovTc  inc  zov  dcxcuoovra,  or  by  ini  with  a 
dative,  as  Rom.  ix.  33,  6  rtcaTeucou  in'  aurcp,  1  Tim.  i.  16,  it 
commonly  means  to  trust,  to  believe  upon,  to  confide  in.  It  has 
the  same  sense  when  followed  by  s^c,  as  in  John  xiv.  i., 
mareotze  ec^  zbv  6sdu,  xa'i  ec^  i/xk  niazsuezs,  xvi.  9,  Rom.  x.  14, 
Gal.  ii.  16,  and  often  elsewhere.  The  construction  with  iu  is 
less  common;  see,  however,  Mark  i.  15,  fjLtzavotlzB,  xac  nca- 
zeoezs  iu  za)  ebayysXiuj;  comp.  Gal.  v.  10,  Ttinoc&a  iv  KupUo, 
2  Thess.  iii.'  4. 

The  substantive  Ttcazi^  also  in  various  constructions  signifies 
reliance,  or  trust;  thus  when  followed  by  ere,  as  in  Acts  xx.  21, 
nlazcv  zrjv  sc^  zbv  Kupiov  -fjjuov,  xxiv.  24,  xxvi.  18 ;  by  l;r/,  with 
the  accusative,  Heb.  vi.  1 ;  by  7tp6<;,  as  1  Thess.  i.  8,  n'tazc^ 
bfjLibv  yj  TTpoi;  zov  deov ;  by  iv,  Rom.  iii.  25,  dca  ztj^  Tilazeioc  iv 
Z(p  auzou  acfiazc,  comp.  Gal.  iii.  26,  1  Tim.  iii.  13,  niazsc  zrj  iv 
XpeazaJ,  2  Tim.  iii.  15 ;  or  by  the  genitive,  as  in  Rom.  iii.  22,  26, 
Gal.  ii.  16,  iii.  22,  and  often.  That  faith,  therefore,  which  is 
connected  with  salvation,  includes  knowledge,  that  is,  a  percep- 
tion of  the  truth  and  its  qualities ;  assent,  or  the  persuasion  of 
the  truth  of  the  object  of  faith;  and  trust,  or  reliance.  The 
exercise,  or  state  of  mind  expressed  by  the  word  faith,  as  used 
in  the  Scriptures,  is  not  mere  assent,  or  mere  trust,  it  is  the 
intelligent  perception,  reception,  and  reliance  on  the  truth,  as 
revealed  in  the  gospel. 

To  the  Jew  first,  and  also  to  the  Grreek.  To  render  npaJzov 
(first,)  here  especially/,  would  make  the  apostle  teach  that  the 
gospel  was  peculiarly  adapted  to  the  Jews,  or  specially  designed 
for  them.  But  he  frequently  asserts  that  this  is  not  the  case, 
chap,  iii.  9,  22,  29,  x.  12.  ITpcozov,  therefore,  must  have  refer- 
ence to  time,  '  To  the  Jew  in  the  first  instance,  and  then  to  the 
Greek.'  Salvation,  as  our  Saviour  said  to  the  woman  of 
Samaria,  is  of  the  Jews.  Of  them  the  Messiah  came,  to  them 
the  gospel  was  first  preached,  and  by  them  preached  to  the 
Gentiles.  The  apostle  often,  as  in  the  present  instance,  says 
Jews  and  Greeks,  for  Jews  and  Gentiles,  because  the  Greeks 
were  the  Gentiles  with  whom,  at  that  period,  the  Jews  were 
most  familiar. 


44  ROMANS  L  17. 

Yekse  17.  The  reason  why  the  gospel  has  the  efficacy 
ascribed  to  it  in  the  preceding  verse,  is  not  because  of  its  pure 
morality,  or  because  it  reveals  and  confirms  a  future  state  of 
retribution,  but  because  the  righteousness  of  Crod  is  therein 
revealed.  As  this  is  one  of  those  expressions  which  are 
employed  to  convey  ideas  peculiar  to  the  gospel,  its  meaning 
is  to  be  learned  not  merely  from  the  signification  of  the  words, 
but  from  parallel  passages,  and  from  the  explanations  given  in 
the  gospel  itself  of  the  whole  subject  to  which  it  relates.  That 
daacoouvTj  cannot  here  be  understood  of  a  divine  attribute,  such 
as  rectitude,  justice,  goodness,  or  veracity,  is  obvious,  because 
it  is  a  dcxacoauvTj  ix  mazeo)^,  a  righteousness  which  is  hy  faith, 
i.  e.  attained  by  faith,  of  which  the  apostle  speaks.  Besides, 
it  is  elsewhere  said  to  be  without  law,  Rom.  iii.  21,  to  be  a 
gift,  V.  17,  not  to  be  our  own,  x.  3,  to  be  from  God,  Philip, 
iii.  9.  These  and  similar  forms  of  expression  are  inconsistent 
with  the  assumption  that  the  apostle  is  speaking  of  a  divine 
attribute.  The  righteousness  of  God,  therefore,  must  mean 
either  the  righteousness  of  which  God  is  the  author,  or  which 
he  approves.  Luther,  Calvin,  and  many  others,  prefer  the 
latter.  "Die  Gerechtigkeit  die  vor  Gott  gilt,"  is  Luther's 
version.  Calvin  says,  "  Justitiam  Dei  accipio,  quse  apud  Dei 
tribunal  approbatur."  Beza,  Reiche,  De  Wette,  Riickert,  and 
others,  prefer  the  latter.  These  ideas  are  not  incompatible. 
This  righteousness  is  at  once  a  dcxacoabvrj  -q  ix  dtou,  Philip, 
iii.  9;  and  a  dcxacoawrj  napa  tw  dtw,  Rom.  ii.  13,  iii,  20,  Gal. 
iii.  11.  The  gospel  reveals  a  righteousness,  which  God  gives, 
and  which  he  approves;  it  is  a  righteousness,  "qua  quisquis 
donatus  est,  sistitur  coram  Deo,  sanctus,  inculpatus,  et  nullius 
labis  possit  postulari."    Beza. 

This  interpretation  is  confirmed  by  all  that  the  Scriptures 
teach  respecting  the  manner  of  our  justification  before  God. 
The  Bible  represents  God  in  the  character  of  a  moral  governor 
or  judge.  Man  is  placed  under  a  law  which  is  the  rule  of  his 
duty,  and  the  standard  by  which  he  is  to  be  judged.  This  law 
may  be  variously  revealed,  but  it  is  ever  substantially  the 
same,  having  the  same  precepts,  the  same  sanction,  and  the 
same  promises.  Those  who  comply  with  the  demands  of  this 
law  are  dixacoc,  righteous ;  those  who  break  the  law  are  ddexoc, 


ROMANS  I.  17.  45 

unrighteous;  to  pronounce  one  righteous  is  Sixatouv,  to  justify; 
the  righteousness  itself,  or  integrity  which  the  law  demands  is 
btxruoa'jvr^.  Those  who  are  righteous,  or  who  have  the  right- 
eousness which  the  law  requires,  or  who  are  justified,  have  a 
title  to  the  favour  of  God. 

Now,  nothing  is  more  clearly  taught  in  the  Scriptures  than 
that  no  man  in  himself  is  righteous  in  the  sight  of  God. 
"  There  is  none  righteous,  no  not  one ;  for  all  have  sinned  and 
come  short  of  the  glory  of  God."  It  is  no  less  clearly  taught 
that  no  man  can  make  himself  righteous ;  that  is,  he  cannot 
attain  the  righteousness  which  the  law  demands,  and  which  is 
necessary  to  his  acceptance  with  God.  The  reason  is  that  the 
law  demands  perfect  obedience,  which  no  one  has  rendered 
or  can  render.  It  is  hence  plain  that  by  the  works  of  the 
law  no  flesh  can  be  justified  before  God.  Rom.  iii.  20,  Gal. 
ii.  16;  dcxcuoauvfj  is  not  ix  )^6ixoo,  Gal.  iii.  21,  or  dea  uofiou, 
ii.  21,  or  i^  epjiov,  ii.  16.  Men  are  not  justified  idia  dcxcuoabvr^ 
by  their  own  righteousness.  Rom.  x.  3.  And  yet  righteous- 
ness is  absolutely  necessary  to  our  justification  and  salvation. 
Such  a  righteousness  the  gospel  reveals ;  a  righteousness  which 
is  "H-opli^  vofxou,  without  the  law;  which  is  not  of  works;  a 
dcxacoauvr)  niazeox;  or  ix  rciazecDc;,  which  is  by  faith;  a  right- 
ousness  which  is  not  our  own,  Philip,  iii.  9 ;  which  is  the  gift 
of  God,  Rom.  v.  17 ;  which  is  ix  dedb  from  G-od ;  which  is 
imputed  X"^pc<;  ipytov  without  works.  Christ  is  our  righteous- 
ness, 1  Cor.  i.  30,  or  we  are  righteous  before  God  in  him. 
2  Cor.  V.  21. 

From  this  contrast  between  a  righteousness  which  is  our 
own,  which  is  of  works,  and  that  which  is  not  our  own,  which 
is  of  God,  from  God,  the  gift  of  God,  it  is  plain  that  the 
dcxauoauvrj  deou  of  which  the  apostle  here  speaks,  is  that 
dcxcuoa'jvTj  by  which  we  are  made  dixatoc  napa  np  dew  ;  it  is  a 
righteousness  which  he  gives  and  which  he  approves.  This 
is  the  interpretation  which  is  given  substantially  by  all  the 
modern  commentators  of  note,  as  Tholuck,  Reiche,  Fritzsche, 
Riickert,  Koellner,  De  Wette,  &c.,  however  much  they  may 
difier  as  to  other  points.  "AUe  Erklarungen,"  says  De  Wette, 
"welche  das  Moment  der  Zurechnung  ubersehen,  und  das  thun 
besonders  die  katholischen,  auch  die  des  Grotius,  sind  falsch." 


46  ROMANS  I.  17. 

That  is,  "All  interpretations  which  overlook  the  idea  of  impu- 
tation, as  is  done  in  the  explanations  given  by  the  Romanists, 
and  also  in  that  of  Grotius,  are  false." 

The  nature  of  this  righteousness,  it  is  one  great  design  of 
this  epistle,  and  of  the  whole  gospel  to  unfold.  This,  there- 
fore is  not  the  place  to  enter  fully  into  the  examination  of 
that  point ;  it  will  present  itself  at  every  step  of  our  progress. 
It  is  sufficient  here  to  specify  the  three  general  views  of  the 
nature  of  that  righteousness  by  which  men  are  justified  before 
God.  The  first  may  be  called  the  Pelagian,  according  to 
which  the  apostle  teaches  that  righteousness  cannot  be  attained 
by  obedience  to  the  ritual  law  of  the  Jews,  but  consists  in 
works  morally  good.  The  second  view  is  that  of  the  Roman- 
ists, who  teach  that  the  works  meant  to  be  excluded  from  our 
justification  are  legal  works ;  works  done  without  grace  and 
before  regeneration  ;  but  the  righteousness  which  makes  us  just 
before  God,  is  that  inherent  righteousness,  or  spiritual  excel- 
lence which  is  obtained  by  the  aid  of  divine  grace.  The  third 
view,  which  is  the  common  doctrine  of  Protestant  churches  is, 
that  the  righteousness  for  which  we  are  justified  is  neither  any- 
thing done  by  us  nor  wrought  in  us,  but  something  done  for  us 
and  imputed  to  us.  It  is  the  work  of  Christ,  what  he  did  and 
suffered  to  satisfy  the  demands  of  the  law.  Hence  not  merely 
external  or  ceremonial  works  are  excluded  as  the  ground  of 
justification ;  but  works  of  righteousness,  all  works  of  what- 
ever kind  or  degree  of  excellence.  Hence  this  righteousness 
is  not  our  own.  It  is  nothing  that  we  have  either  wrought 
ourselves,  or  that  inheres  in  us.  Hence  Christ  is  said  to  be 
our  righteousness ;  and  we  are  said  to  be  justified  by  his  blood, 
his  death,  his  obedience ;  we  are  righteous  in  him,  and  are 
justified  by,  him  or  in  his  name,  or  for  his  sake.  The  right- 
eousness of  God,  therefore,  which  the  gospel  reveals,  and  by 
which  we  are  constituted  righteous,  is  the  perfect  righteous- 
ness of  Christ  which  completely  meets  and  answers  all  the 
demands  of  that  law  to  which  all  men  are  subject,  and  which 
all  have  broken. 

This  righteousness  is  said  in  the  text  to  be  of  faith.  It  is 
obvious  that  the  words  kx  iriaTtwi;  are  not  to  be  connected  with 
djtoxaluTtztzcu.     They   must   be  connected   either   directly   or 


ROMANS  I.  17.  47 

indirectly  with  oucuoaiivq.  It  is  either  buaioa'jvq  ix  Ttiaveojq 
drcoxaAuTiTezcu,  righteousness  hy  faith  is  revealed;  or,  dcxatoauvrj 
d.7toxaXu7:TeTae  ix  Tzcareo)^  ouaa,  righteousness  is  revealed,  being 
of  faith,  i.  e.  which  is  by  faith.  Not  an  excellence  of  which 
faith  is  the  germinating  principle,  or  which  consists  in  faith, 
because  this  is  inconsistent  with  all  those  representations  which 
show  that  this  righteousness  is  not  subjective. 

The  meaning  of  the  words  e^c  TTjVrrv  in  the  formula  kx 
mazeioz  d^  niazcv,  from  faith  to  faith,  is  very  doubtful.  They 
must  be  explained  in  a  manner  consistent  with  their  connection 
with  dcxatoa'jvYj.  It  is  a  righteousness  Avhich  is  of  faith  to  faith. 
Now  it  cannot  be  said  that  our  justification  depends  on  our 
believing  first  the  Old  Testament,  and  then  the  New,  which  is 
the  interpretation  of  Theodoret — dzl  yap  mazvjaru  roTc  iipo(pq- 
Tou^,  xai  dc  kxeivojv  £:c  tr^v  zou  euayyekioij  rrcaziu  TTodqyr^&quou; 
nor  does  it  seem  to  suit  this  connection  to  make  the  phrase  in 
question  express  a  progress  from  a  weak  or  imperfect  faith 
to  that  which  is  more  perfect.  This  however  is  a  very  gene- 
rally received  interpretation.  Calvin  says,  "  Quum  initio  gusta- 
mus  evangelium,  lactam  quidem  et  exporrectam  nobis  cernimus 
Dei  frontem,  sed  eminus ;  quo  magis  augescit  pietatis  erudi- 
tio,  velut  propiore  accessu  clarius  ac  magis  familiariter  Dei 
gratiam  perspicimus."  The  sense  is  however  perfectly  clear 
and  good,  if  the  phrase  is  explained  to  mean,  faith  alone. 
As  "death  unto  death"  and  "life  unto  life"  are  intensive, 
so  "faith  unto  faith"  may  mean,  entirely  of  faith.  Our  justi- 
fication is  by  faith  alone ;  works  form  no  part  of  that  right- 
eousness in  which  we  can  stand  before  the  tribunal  of  God. 
"Dicit,"  says  Bengel,   "fidem  meram;  namque  justitia  ex  fide 

subsistit  in  fide,   sine   operibus Fides,   inquit  Paulus, 

manet  fides ;  fides  est  prora  et  puppis,  apud  Judseos  et  Gentiles, 
etiam  apud  Paulum,  usque  ad  ipsam  ejus  consummationem." 
Most  of  the  modern  commentators  regard  £:c  in  the  words  s/c 
Tziazcv,  as  indicating  the  terminus.  Righteousness  is  from  faith 
and  unto  faith,  comes  to  it.  This  makes  ncazev  here  virtually 
equivalent  to  mazeuovzai;,  as  in  chap.  iii.  22,  the  dcxatoaoviq 
Oeoi)  is  said  to  be  ei<;  7:dvza.(;  zoh-^  mazeuovza^.  Righteousness 
then  is  by  faith  and  unto  faith,  i.  e.  is  granted  unto  or  bestowed 
upon  believers. 


48  ROMANS  I.  IT. 

This  doctrine  of  the  apostle,  that  the  righteousness  which  is 
unto  life  is  to  be  obtained  by  faith,  he  confirms  by  a  reference 
to  Hab.  ii.  4,  where  it  is  said,  6  ^e  dixacoq  ex  -Kiarecoi;,  ^ijfferae, 
he  that  is  righteous  hy  faith^  shall  live;  or,  the  righteous  shall 
live  hy  faith.  The  connection  of  kx  Ti'tareox:  with  d'lxacoi;  is 
certainly  best  suited  to  the  apostle's  object,  which  is  to  show 
that  righteousness  is  by  faith;  but  in  either  construction  the 
sense  is  substantially  the  same.  Salvation  is  by  faith.  In  the 
Hebrew  also,  either  construction  is  allowable,  as  the  words  are 
"The  righteous  in  his  faith  shall  live."  The  Masoretic  accen- 
tuation however  connects,  as  Paul  does,  the  first  two  words 
together,  'The  righteous  in  his  faith,  shall  live.'  Shall  live, 
shall  attain  that  life  which  Christ  gives,  which  is  spiritual, 
blessed,  and  everlasting;  comp.  chap.  v.  17,  viii.  13,  x.  3.  This 
passage  is  cited  in  confirmation  of  the  apostle's  own  doctrine, 
and  is  peculiarly  pertinent  as  it  shows  that  under  the  old  dis- 
pensation as  well  as  under  the  new,  the  favour  of  God  was 
to  be  secured  by  faith. 

DOCTRINE. 

1.  The  apostolic  ofiice,  except  as  to  what  was  peculiar  and 
extraordinary,  being  essentially  the  same  with  the  ministerial 
office  in  general,  Paul  teaches,  1.  That  ministers  are  the 
servants  of  Christ,  deriving  their  authority  from  him,  and  not 
from  the  people ;  2.  That  their  calling  is  to  preach  the  gospel, 
to  which  all  other  avocations  must  be  made  subordinate; 
3.  That  the  object  of  their  appointment  is  to  bring  men  to 
the  obedience  of  faith;  4.  That  their  field  is  all  nations; 
5.  That  the  design  of  all  is  to  honour  Christ;  it  is  for  his 
name,  vs.  1 — 5. 

2.  The  gospel  is  contained  in  its  rudiments  in  the  Old 
Testament.     It  is  the  soul  of  the  old  dispensation,  ver.  2. 

3.  Christ  is  the  Alpha  and  Omega  of  the  gospel.  In 
stating  the  substance  of  the  gospel,  Paul  says,  '  It  concerns 
Jesus  Christ,'  ver.  3. 

4.  Christ  is  at  once  God  and  man;  the  son  of  David  and 
the  Son  of  God,  vs.  3,  4. 

5.  Christ  is  called  the  Son  of  God  in  reference  to  his  Divine 
nature,  and  on  account  of  the  relation  in  which,  as  God,  he 


ROMANS  I.  17.  49 

stands  to  the  Father.     The  name,  therefore,  is  expressive  of 
his  Divine  character,  vs.  3,  4. 

6.  He  is  the  proper  object  of  prayer,  and  the  source  of 
spiritual  blessings,  ver.  7. 

7.  He  is  the  Mediator  through  whom  our  prayers  and 
thanksgiving  must  be  presented  to  God,  ver.  8. 

8.  God  is  the  source  of  all  spiritual  good;  is  to  be  wor- 
shipped in  spirit,  and  agreeably  to  the  gospel ;  and  his  pro- 
vidence is  to  be  recognized  in  reference  to  the  most  ordinary 
affairs  of  life,  vs.  8 — 10. 

9.  Ministers  are  not  a  class  of  men  exalted  above  the  people, 
and  independent  of  them  for  spiritual  benefits,  but  are  bound 
to  seek,  as  well  as  to  impart  good,  in  all  their  intercourse  with 
those  to  whom  they  are  sent,  vs.  11,  12. 

10.  Ministers  are  bound  to  preaCh  the  gospel  to  all  men, 
rich  as  well  as  poor,  wise  as  well  as  unwise ;  for  it  is  equally 
adapted  to  the  wants  of  all,  vs.  14,  15. 

11.  The  salvation  of  men,  including  the  pardon  of  their  sins 
and  the  moral  renovation  of  their  hearts,  can  be  effected  by  the 
gospel  alone.  The  wisdom  of  men,  during  four  thousand  years 
previous  to  the  advent  of  Christ,  failed  to  discover  any  ade- 
quate means  for  the  attainment  of  either  of  these  objects;  and 
those  who,  since  the  advent,  have  neglected  the  gospel,  have 
been  equally  unsuccessful,  ver.  16,  &c. 

12.  The  power  of  the  gospel  lies  not  in  its  pure  theism,  or 
perfect  moral  code,  but  in  the  Cross,  in  the  doctrine  of  justifi- 
cation by  faith  in  a  crucified  Redeemer,  ver.  17,  &c. 

REMARKS. 

1.  Ministers  should  remember  that  they  are  "separated  unto 
the  gospel,"  and  that  any  occupation  which,  by  its  demands 
upon  their  attention,  or  from  its  influence  on  their  character  or 
feelings,  interferes  with  their  devotion  to  this  object,  is  for 
them  wrong,  ver.  1. 

2.  If  Jesus  Christ  is  the  great  subject  of  the  gospel,  it  is 
evident  that  we  cannot  have  right  views  of  the  one,  without 
having  correct  opinions  respecting  the  other.  What  think  ye 
of  Christ  ?  cannot  be  a  minor  question.  To  be  Christians,  we 
must  recognize  him  as  the  Messiah,  or  son  of  David;  and  as 

4 


50  ROMANS  I.  18—32. 

Divine,  or  the  Son  of  God ;  we  must  be  able  to  pray  to  him,  to 
look  for  blessings  from  him,  and  recognize  him  as  the  Mediator 
between  God  and  man,  vs.  1 — 8. 

3.  Christians  should  remember  that  they  are  saints ;  that  is, 
persons  separated  from  the  world  and  consecrated  to  God. 
They  therefore  cannot  serve  themselves  or  the  world,  without  a 
dereliction  of  their  character.  They  are  saints,  because  called 
and  made  such  of  God.  To  all  such,  grace  and  peace  are 
secured  by  the  mediation  of  Christ,  and  the  promise  of  God, 
ver.  7. 

4.  In  presenting  truth,  everything  consistent  with  fidelity 
should  be  done  to  conciliate  the  confidence  and  kind  feelings  of 
those  to  whom  it  is  addressed ;  and  everything  avoided,  which 
tends  to  excite  prejudice  against  the  speaker  or  his  message. 
Who  more  faithful  than  Paul?  Yet  who  more  anxious  to  avoid 
offence  ?  Who  more  solicitous  to  present  the  truth,  not  in  its 
most  irritating  form,  but  in  the  manner  best  adapted  to  gain 
for  it  access  to  the  unruffled  minds  of  his  readers  ?  vs.  8 — 14. 

5.  As  all  virtues,  according  to  the  Christian  system,  are 
graces  (gifts,)  they  afford  matter  for  thanksgiving,  but  never 
for  self-complacency,  ver.  8. 

6.  The  intercourse  of  Christians  should  be  desired,  and  made 
to  result  in  edification,  by  their  mutual  faith,  ver.  12. 

7.  He  who  rejects  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith, 
rejects  the  gospel.  His  whole  method  of  salvation,  and  system 
of  religion,  must  be  different  from  those  of  the  apostles,  ver.  17. 

8.  Whether  we  be  wise  or  unwise,  moral  or  immoral,  in  the 
sight  of  men,  orthodox  or  heterodox  in  our  opinions,  unless 
we  are  believers,  unless  we  cordially  receive  "  the  righteousness 
which  is  of  God,"  as  the  ground  of  acceptance,  we  have  no  part 
or  lot  in  the  salvation  of  the  gospel,  ver.  17. 

ROMANS  I.  18—32. 
ANALYSIS. 

The  apostle  having  stated  that  the  only  righteousness  avail- 
able in  the  sight  of  God  is  that  which  is  obtained  by  faith, 
proceeds  to  prove  that  such  is  the  case.     This  proof  required 


ROMANS  I.  18.  51 

that  he  should,  in  the  first  instance,  demonstrate  that  the  j 
righteousness  which  is  of  the  law,  or  of  works,  was  insufficient  i 
for  the  justification  of  a  sinner.  This  he  does,  first  in  refer- 
rence  to  the  Gentiles,  chap.  i.  18 — 32 ;  and  then  in  relation  to 
the  Jews,  chap,  ii.,  iii.  1 — 20.  The  residue  of  this  chapter 
then  is  designed  to  prove  that  the  Gentiles  are  justly  exposed  jf 
to  condemnation.  The  apostle  thus  argues:  God  is  just;  his 
displeasure  against  sin  (which  is  its  punishment)  is  clearly 
revealed,  ver.  18.  This  principle  is  assumed  by  the  apostle,  as 
the  foundation  of  his  whole  argument.  If  this  be  granted,  it 
follows  that  all  who  are  chargeable  with  either  impiety  or 
immorality  are  exposed  to  the  wrath  of  God,  and  cannot  claim 
his  favour  on  the  ground  of  their  own  character  or  conduct. 
That  the  Gentiles  are  justly  chargeable  with  both  impiety  and 
immorality,  he  thus  proves.  They  have  ever  enjoyed  such  a 
revelation  of  the  divine  character  as  to  render  them  inexcusa- 
ble, vs.  19,  20.  Notwithstanding  this  opportunity  of  knowing 
God,  they  neither  worshipped  nor  served  him,  but  gave  them- 
selves up  to  all  forms  of  idolatry.  This  is  the  height  of 
impiety,  vs.  21 — 23.  In  consequence  of  this  desertion  of  God, 
he  gave  them  up  to  the  evil  of  their  own  hearts,  so  that  they 
sank  into  all  manner  of  debasing  crimes.  The  evidences  of 
this  corruption  of  morals  were  so  painfully  obvious,  that  Paul 
merely  appeals  to  the  knowledge  which  all  his  readers  possessed 
of  the  fact,  vs.  24 — 31.  These  various  crimes  they  do  not 
commit  ignorantly ;  they  are  aware  of  their  ill-desert ;  and  yet 
they  not  only  commit  them  themselves,  but  encourage  others  in 
the  same  course,  v.  32. 

The  inference  from  the  established  sinfulness  of  the  Gentile 
world,  Paul  does  not  draw  until  he  has  substantiated  the  same 
charge  against  the  Jews.  He  then  says,  since  all  are  sinners 
before  God,  no  flesh  can  be  justified  by  the  works  of  the  law, 
chap.  iii.  20. 

COMMENTARY. 

Verse  18.  ^ JTroxakuTrrsTat  yap  op-pj  6eou  d.Ti'  obpavoo.  For 
the  wrath  of  Crod  is  revealed  from  heaven.  The  apostle's  object 
is  to  prove  the  doctrine  of  the  preceding  verse,  viz.  that  right- 
eousness is  by  faith.     To  do  this  it  was  necessary  to  show  that 


52  ROMANS  I.  18. 

men  in  themselves  are  exposed  to  condemnation,  or  are  desti- 
tute of  any  righteousness  which  can  satisfy  the  demands  of 
God.  His  argument  is,  God  is  just ;  he  is  determined  to  punish 
sin,  and  as  all  men  are  sinners,  all  are  exposed  to  punishment. 
Hence  this  verse  is  connected  by  ydp  to  the  preceding  one. 
Men  must  be  justified  by  faith,  for  the  wrath  of  God  is 
revealed,  &c. 

The  wrath  of  Crod  is  his  punitive  justice,  his  determination 
to  punish  sin.  The  passion  which  is  called  anger  or  wrath, 
and  which  is  always  mixed  more  or  less  with  malignity  in  the 
human  breast,  is  of  course  infinitely  removed  from  what  the 
word  imports  when  used  in  reference  to  God.  Yet  as  anger  in 
men  leads  to  the  infliction  of  evil  on  its  object,  the  word  is, 
agreeably  to  a  principle  which  pervades  the  Scriptures,  applied 
to  the  calm  and  undeviating  purpose  of  the  Divine  mind,  which 
secures  the  connection  between  sin  and  misery,  with  the  same 
general  uniformity  that  any  other  law  in  the  physical  or  moral 
government  of  God  operates. 

Is  revealed.  ^ AnoxaXonra}  is  properly,  to  uncover,  to  bring  to 
light,  and  hence  to  make  known,  whether  by  direct  communica- 
tion, or  in  some  other  way.  A  thing  is  said  to  be  revealed, 
when  it  becomes  known  from  its  efi"ects.  It  is  thus  that  the 
thoughts  of  the  heart,  the  arm  of  the  Lord,  and  the  wrath  of 
God  are  said  to  be  "revealed."  It  is  not  necessary  therefore  to 
infer  from  the  use  of  this  word,  that  the  apostle  meant  to  inti- 
mate that  the  purpose  of  God  to  punish  sin  was  made  known 
by  any  special  revelation.  That  purpose  is  manifested  in 
various  ways ;  by  the  actual  punishment  of  sin,  by  the  inherent 
tendency  of  moral  evil  to  produce  misery,  by  the  voice  of  con- 
science. Nor  do  the  words  "from  heaven"  imply  any  extraor- 
dinary mode  of  communication.  They  are  added  because  God 
dwells  in  heaven,  whence  all  exhibitions  of  his  character  and 
purposes  are  said  to  proceed.  It  is  however  implied  in  the 
whole  form  of  expression,  that  this  revelation  is  clear  and 
certain.  Men  know  the  righteous  judgment  of  God;  they 
know  that  those  who  commit  sin  are  worthy  of  death.  As  this 
is  an  ultimate  truth,  existing  in  every  man's  consciousness, 
it  is  properly  assumed,  and  made  the  basis  of  the  apostle's 
argument. 


ROMANS  I.  19.  68 

This  displeasure  of  God  is  revealed  against  all  ungodliness 
and  unrighteousness  of  men;  that  is,  against  all  impiety  towards 
God  (dai^eia,)  and  injustice  towards  men  (ddixta.)  This  dis- 
tinction is  kept  up  in  the  following  part  of  the  chapter,  in 
which  the  apostle  proves  first  the  impiety,  and  then  the  gross 
immorality  of  the  heathen.  Who  hold  the  truth  in  unrighteous- 
ness. The  word  dX^&eca  is  used  in  the  Scriptures  in  a  more 
comprehensive  sense  than  our  word  truth.  It  often  means 
what  is  right,  as  well  as  what  is  true ;  and  is  therefore  often 
used  in  antithesis  to  ddixca,  unrighteousness,  as  in  Rom,  ii.  8 ; 
see  Gal.  iii.  1,  v.  7.  It  is  used  especially  of  moral  and  religious 
truth ;  see  John  iii.  21,  viii.  32,  2  Cor.  iv.  2,  2  Thess.  ii.  12.  It 
is  therefore  equivalent  to  true  religion,  that  is,  what  is  true  and 
right,  in  reference  to  God  and  duty.  As  xaxkyzttJ  sometimes 
means  to  have  in  the  sense  of  possessing,  as  in  1  Cor.  vii.  30, 
this  clause  may  be  rendered,  'Who  have  the  truth,  together 
with  unrighteousness;'  i.  e.  although  they  possess  the  truth, 
are  unrighteous.  Comp.  James  ii.  1,  //tji  Iv  7ipo<ja)7ioXrj{piai<; 
eyjze  rrjv  mazcv.  The  sentiment  is  then  the  same  as  in  ver.  21, 
where  the  heathen  are  said  to  know  God,  and  yet  to  act 
wickedly.  But  as  '/.arkyziv  also  means  to  detain,  to  repress  or 
hinder,  2  Thess.  ii.  6,  7,  the  passage  may  be  translated.  Who 
hinder  or  oppose  the  truth.  The  great  majority  of  commenta- 
tors are  in  favour  of  this  latter  interpretation.  The  words  iv 
ddcxia  may  either  express  the  means  of  this  opposition,  and 
be  rendered,  through  unrighteousness;  or  they  may  be  taken 
adverbially.  Who  unjustly,  or  wickedly  oppose  the  truth.  The 
former  is  to  be  preferred. 

Veksb  19.  That  this  opposition  is  wicked,  because  inex- 
cusable on  the  plea  of  ignorance,  is  proved  in  this  and  the 
following  verses.  They  wickedly  oppose  the  truth,  because  the 
knowledge  of  God  is  manifest  among  them.  Agreeably  to  this 
explanation,  this  verse  is  connected  with  the  immediately  pre- 
ceding clause.  It  may  however  refer  to  the  general  sentiment 
of  ver.  18.  God  will  punish  the  impiety  and  unrighteousness 
of  men,  because  he  has  made  himself  known  to  them.  The 
former  method  is  to  be  preferred  as  more  in  accordance  with 
the  apostle's  manner,  and  more  consistent  with  the  context, 
inasmuch  as   he   goes   on   to  prove   that   the  impiety  of  the 


54  •  ROMANS  I.  19. 

heathen  is  inexcusable.  Since  that  which  may  he  hnown  of 
God,  is  manifest  in  them.  This  version  is  not  in  accordance 
with  the  meaning  of  yvioazdv,  which  always  in  the  Bible  means, 
what  is  known,  not  what  may  be  known.  Besides,  the  English 
version  seems  to  imply  too  much ;  for  the  apostle  does  not  mean 
to  say  that  everything  that  may  be  known  concerning  God  was 
revealed  to  the  heathen,  but  simply  that  they  had  such  a  know- 
ledge of  him  as  rendered  their  impiety  inexcusable.  We  find 
■(■vcoaTOQ  used  in  the  sense  of  yvcoroc;,  known.,  Acts  i.  19,  ii.  14, 
XV.  18,  jvojavd  6.71  aloJvo^  iazc  xijj  OsaJ  Tzdvta  xa  Ipya  abrdi); 
and  often  elsewhere.  Hence  to  yvtoarbv  \^=.yvii)aic„  as  in  Gen. 
ii.  9,  yucoazou  too  xaXoo  xul  zoo  novf^pou.  The  knowledge  of 
God  does  not  mean  simply  a  knowledge  that  there  is  a  God, 
but,  as  appears  from  what  follows,  a  knowledge  of  his  nature 
and  attributes,  his  eternal  power  and  Godhead,  ver.  20,  and  his 
justice,  ver.  32.  0avs(j6u  eazcv  kv  abzo7i;,  may  be  rendered, 
either  is  manifest  among  them,  or  in  them.  If  the  former 
translation  be  adopted,  it  is  not  to  be  understood  as  declaring 
that  certain  men,  the  Pythagoreans,  Platonists,  and  Stoics,  as 
Grotius  says,  had  this  knowledge ;  but  that  it  was  a  common 
revelation,  accessible,  manifest  to  all.  In  them,  however,  here 
more  properly  means,  in  their  minds.  "In  ipsorum  animis," 
says  Beza,  "quia  haec  Dei  notitia  recondita  est  in  intimis 
mentis  penetralibus,  ut,  velint  nolint  idololatrse,  quoties  sese 
adhibent  in  consilium,  toties  a  seipsis  redarguantur."  It  is  not 
of  a  mere  external  revelation  of  which  the  apostle  is  speaking, 
but  of  that  evidence  of  the  being  and  perfections  of  God  which 
every  man  has  in  the  constitution  of  his  own  nature,  and  in 
virtue  of  which  he  is  competent  to  apprehend  the  manifesta- 
tions of  God  in  his  works.     For  Grod  hath  revealed  to  them, 

V  viz,  the  knowledge  of  himself.  This  knowledge  is  a  revelation ; 
it  is  the  manifestation  of  God  in  his  works,  and  in  the  consti- 
tution of  our  nature.  "Quod  dicit,"  says  Calvin,  "Deum 
manifestasse,  sensus  est,  ideo  conditum  esse  hominem,  ut  spec- 
tator sit  fabrise  mundi;  ideo  datos  ei  oculos,  ut  intuitu  tam 
pulchrne  imaginis,  ad  auctorem  ipsum  feratur."  God  there- 
fore has  never  left  himself  without  a  witness.     His  existence 

>«  and  perfections  have  ever  been  so  manifested  that  his  rational 


ROMANS  I.  20.  55 

creatures  are  bound  to  acknowledge  and  worship  him  as  the 
true  and  only  God. 

Verse  20.  This  verse  is  a  confirmation  and  amplification  of 
the  preceding,  inasmuch  as  it  proves  that  God  does  manifest 
himself  to  men,  shows  how  this  manifestation  is  made,  and 
draws  the  inference  that  men  are,  in  virtue  of  this  revelation, 
inexcusable  for  their  impiety.  The  argument  is,  God  has  mani- 
fested the  knowledge  of  himself  to  men,  for  the  invisible  things 
of  him,  that  is,  his  eternal  power  and  Godhead  are,  since  the 
creation,  clearly  seen,  being  understood  by  his  works ;  they  are 
therefore  without  excuse.  The  invisible  tilings  of  him.  By  the 
invisible  things  of  God,  Theodoret  says  we  are  to  understand 
creation,  providence,  and  the  divine  judgments;  Theophylact 
understands  them  to  refer  to  his  goodness,  wisdom,  power,, 
and  majesty.  Between  these  interpretations  the  moderns  are 
divided.  The  great  majority  prefer  the  latter,  which  is  obvi- 
ously the  better  suited  to  the  context,  because  the  works  of 
God  are  expressed  afterwards  by  noiij/jiaTa,  and  because  the 
invisible  things  are  those  which  are  manifested  by  his  works, 
and  are  explained  by  the  terms  "power  and  Godhead."  The 
subsequent  clause,  iy  rs  diSco^  ahrdb  duvafit;;  xal  d^ecor/j^,  is  in 
apposition  with  and  an  explanation  of  the  former  one.  The 
particle  re  followed  by  xai,  serves  then,  as  Tholuck  remarks,  to 
the  partition  of  dopaza  into  the  two  ideas  doua/uc^  and  ^siottj^, 
and  not  to  annex  a  distinct  idea,  as  though  the  meaning  were, 
*and  also  his  power  and  Godhead.'  The  power  of  God  is  more 
immediately  manifested  in  his  works ;  but  not  his  power  alone, 
but  his  divine  excellence  in  general,  which  is  expressed  by 
■d-ecoTTj^,  from  ^sio^.  deozT^i;,  from  0£6c,  on  the  other  hand, 
expresses  the  being,  rather  than  the  excellence  of  God.  The 
latter  is  Godhead;  the  former,  divinity,  a  collective  term  for 
all  the  divine  perfections. 

This  divine  revelation  has  been  made  dno  xriascoQ  xoafxoo, 
from  the  creation  of  the  world,  not  hy  the  creation ;  for  ^riacQ 
here  is  the  act  of  creation,  and  not  the  thing  created ;  and  the 
means  by  which  the  revelation  is  made,  is  expressed  immedi- 
ately by  the  Avords  ro?c  Ttocqixaai,  which  would  then  be  redun- 
dant. The  Ttod^fiara  too  0eou,  in  this  connection,  are  the 
things  made  by  God,  rather  than  the  things  done  by  him.    The 


56  ROMANS  I.  21. 

apostle  says  t  e  dopaza  xa&opavac,  the  unseen  things  are  seen, 
because  they  are  perceived  by  the  mind ;  vooupeva  being  under- 
stood by  means  of  the  things»made.  So  that  they  are  inexcusa- 
ble. These  •words  are  by  Griesbach,  Knapp,  and  others,  made 
to  depend  on  the  last  clause  of  ver.  19 ;  and  then  the  interpre- 
tation of  Beza  and  the  elder  Calvinists  would  be  the  most 
natural.  God  has  revealed  the  knowledge  of  himself  to  men,  in 
order  that  they  might  be  without  excuse.  But  this,  to  say  the 
least,  is  unnecessary.  The  connection  with  xad-oparat  is  per- 
fectly natural.  '  The  perfections  of  God,  being  understood  by 
his  works,  are  seen,  so  that  men  are  without  excuse.'  Paul  does 
not  here  teach  that  it  is  the  design  of  God,  in  revealing  himself 
to  men,  to  render  their  opposition  inexcusable,  but  rather,  since 
this  revelation  has  been  made,  they  have  in  fact  no  apology  for 
their  ignorance  and  neglect  of  God.  Though  the  revelation  of 
God  in  his  works  is  sufficient  to  render  men  inexcusable,  it  does 
not  follow  that  it  is  sufficient  to  lead  men,  blinded  by  sin,  to  a 
saving  knowledge  of  himself.  As  Paul  says  of  the  law,  that  it 
was  weak  through  the  flesh,  that  is,  insufficient  on  account  of 
our  corruption,  so  it  may  be  said  of  the  light  of  nature,  that, 
although  sufficient  in  itself  as  a  revelation,  it  is  not  sufficient, 
considering  the  indisposition  and  inattention  of  men  to  divine 
things.  "Sit  haec  distinctio,"  says  Calvin,  " demonstratio 
Dei,  qua  gloriam  suam  in  creaturis  perspicuam  facit,  esse, 
quantum  ad  lucem  suam,  satis  evidentem;  quantum  ad  nos- 
tram  csecitatem,  non  adeo  sufficere.  CaBterum  non  ita  cseci 
sumus,  ut  ignorantiam  possimus  prsetexere,  quin  perversitatis 
arguamur." 

Verse  21.  Since  knowing  (rod.  The  most  natural  and 
obvious  connection  of  this  verse  is  with  the  last  clause  of  the 
preceding,  'Men  are  without  excuse,  since,  although  they  knew 
God,  they  worshipped  him  not  as  God.'  This  connection, 
moreover,  is  in  accordance  with  the  apostle's  manner,  who 
often  establishes  a  proposition,  which  is  itself  an  inference,  by 
a  new  process  of  argument.  Thus  in  the  present  instance,  in 
vs.  19,  20,  he  proved  that  the  heathen  had  a  knowledge  of  God 
which  rendered  them  inexcusable,  and  then  the  fact  that  they 
were  without  excuse,  is  proved  by  showing  that  they  did  not 
act  in  accordance  with  the  truth.     Ruckert,  however,  who  is 


ROMANS  I.  21.  57 

followed  by  Tholuck,  considering  that  the  apostle's  object  is  to 
show  that  the  heathen  wickedly  oppose  the  truth,  as  stated  in 
ver.  18 ;  and  that  this  proof  consists  of  two  parts,  first,  the 
heathen  had  the  knowledge  of  the  truth,  vs.  19,  20,  and 
secondly,  that  they  did  not  act  according  to  it,  vs.  21 — 23; 
assumes  that  the  connection  is  rather  with  the  last  clause  of 
ver.  18,  and  that  something  is  implied  here  which  is  not 
expressed,  and  that  the  logical  reference  of  dcort  is  to  this 
omitted  thought.  '  The  heathen  are  without  excuse,  and  tvick- 
edly  oppose  the  truth,  since  although  they  knew  God,  they 
glorified  him  not  as  God.'  This  sense  is  good  enough,  but  it 
is  a  forced  and  unnatural  interpretation. 

The  apostle  having  shown  in  ver.  19,  that  the  knowledge  of 
God  was  revealed  to  men,  has  no  hesitation  in  saying  that  the 
heathen  knew  God ;  which  d-oes  not  mean  merely  that  they  had 
the  opportunity  of  knowing  him,  but  that  in  the  constitution  of 
their  own  nature,  and  in  the  works  of  creation,  they  actually 
possessed  an  intelligible  revelation  of  the  Divine  existence  and 
perfections.  This  revelation  was  indeed  generally  so  neglected, 
that  men  knew  not  what  it  taught.  Still  they  had  the  know- 
ledge, in  the  same  sense  that  those  who  have  the  Bible  are  said 
to  have  the  knowledge  of  the  will  of  God,  however  much  they 
may  neglect  and  disregard  it.  In  both  cases  there  is  knowledge 
presented,  and  a  revelation  made,  and  in  both  ignorance  is 
without  excuse.  As  there  is  no  apology  for  the  impiety  of  the 
heathen  to  be  found  in  any  unavoidable  ignorance,  their  idola- 
try was  the  fruit  of  depravity.  The  apostle  therefore  says, 
that  although  they  knew  God,  they  glorified  him  not  as  G-od, 
neither  were  thankful  to  him.  Jo^d^eeu  is  to  ascribe  honour 
to  any  one,  to  praise,  and  also  to  honour,  to  make  glorious, 
or  cause  that  others  should  honour  any  one.  Men  are  said 
to  glorify  God  either  when  they  ascribe  glory  to  him,  or 
when  they  so  act  as  to  lead  others  to  honour  him.  In  the 
present  case,  the  former  idea  is  expressed  by  the  word.  They 
did  not  reverence  and  worship  God  as  their  God ;  neither  did 
they  refer  to  him  the  blessings  which  they  daily  received  at  his 
hands. 

Instead  of  thus  rendering  unto  God  the  homage  and  grati- 
tude which  are  his  due,  they  became  vain  in  their  imaginations. 


58  ROMANS  I.  22. 

Vain,  {i iiatatcbd^rjaav)  that  is,  according  to  constant  scriptural 
usage,  became  both  foolish  and  wicked.  Vain  conversation  is 
corrupt  conversation,  1  Pet.  i.  18 ;  and  vanity  is  wickedness, 
Eph.  iv.  17.  These  words  are  all  frequently  used  in  reference  to 
idolatry,  as  idols  are  in  the  Bible  often  called  [idzaca,  vanities. 
In  their  imaginations,  dcaXojcafxdl(;,  properly  thoughts;  but  usu- 
ally, in  the  New  Testament,  with  the  implication  of  evil ;  evil 
thoughts  or  machinations.  Here  the  word  also  has  a  bad  sense. 
The  thoughts  of  the  heathen  concerning  God  were  perverted  and 
corrupt  thoughts.  The  whole  clause  therefore  means,  that  the 
heathen,  in  refusing  to  recognize  the  true  God,  entertained 
foolish  and  wicked  thoughts  of  the  Divine  Being ;  that  is,  they 
sank  into  the  folly  and  sin  of  idolatry.  And  their  foolish  heart 
was  darkened;  they  lost  the  light  of  divine  knowledge ;  dauvsrot;, 
destitute  of  auve(TC(;  understanding,  insight  into  the  nature  of 
divine  things.  The  consequence  of  this  want  of  divine  know- 
ledge was  darkness.  The  word  xapdia,  heart,  stands  for  the 
whole  soul.  Hence  men  are  said  to  understand  with  the  heart, 
Matt.  xiii.  15 ;  to  believe  with  the  heart,  Rom.  x.  ]  0 ;  the  heart 
is  said  to  be  enlightened  with  knowledge,  2  Cor.  iv.  6 ;  and  the 
eyes  of  the  heart  are  said  to  be  opened,  Eph.  i.  8.  The  word 
dcavoia,  mind,  is  used  with  the  same  latitude,  not  only  for  the 
intellect,  but  also  for  the  seat  of  the  aftections,  as  in  Eph.  ii.  3, 
we  read  of  the  desires  of  the  mind.  It  is  not  merely  intel- 
lectual darkness  or  ignorance  which  the  apostle  describes  in 
this  verse,  but  the  whole  moral  state.  We  find  throughout  the 
Scriptures  the  idea  of  foolishness  and  sin,  of  wisdom  and  piety, 
intimately  connected.  In  the  language  of  the  Bible,  a  fool  is 
an  impious  man ;  the  wise  are  the  pious,  those  who  fear  God ; 
foolishness  is  sin;  understanding  is  religion.  The  folly  and 
darkness  of  which  the  apostle  here  speaks,  are  therefore  ex- 
pressive of  want  of  divine  knowledge,  which  is  both  the  effect 
and  cause  of  moral  depravity. 

Verse  22.  Professing  themselves  to  he  wise.  0daxovTe(:  ehac 
aocpoi,  (for  ao(poi)<:,  by  attraction.)  Saying  in  the  sense  of  pre- 
tending to  be.  The  more  they  boasted  of  their  wisdom,  the 
more  conspicuous  became  their  folly.  What  greater  folly  can 
there  be,  than  to  worship  beasts  rather  than  God  ?  To  this 
the  apostle  refers  in  the  next  verse. 


ROMANS  I.  23.  59 

Verse  23.  They  became  fools,  and  exchanged  the  glory  of 
the  incorruptible  Grod  for  the  likeness  of  the  image  of  corruptible 
man.  Herein  consisted  their  amazing  folly,  that  they,  as 
rational  beings,  should  worship  the  creature  in  preference  to 
the  Creator.  The  common  construction  of  the  verb  dXXdaaecv 
in  Greek  when  it  means  to  exchange,  is  either  W  rtvoc:,  or  zc 
dvti  Tcpo^;  but  the  apostle  imitates  the  Hebrew  construction, 
2  T^^pri,  which  by  the  LXX.  is  rendered  d.?Mcrae(V  iu,  as  in  Ps. 
cvi.  20.  The  sense  is  not  that  they  change  one  thing  into 
another,  but  that  they  exchanged  one  thing  for  another.  The 
glory,  a  collective  term  for  all  the  divine  perfections.  They 
exchanged  the  substance  for  the  image,  the  substantial  or  real 
divine  glories  for  the  likeness  of  an  image  of  corruptible  man, 
i.  e.  an  image  like  to  corruptible  man.  The  contrast  is  not 
merely  between  God  and  man,  or  between,  the  incorruptible, 
imperishable,  eternal  God,  and  frail  man,  but  between  this 
incorruptible  God  and  the  image  of  a  man.  It  was  not,  how- 
ever, in  the  worship  of  the  images  of  men  only  that  the  degra- 
dation of  the  heathen  was  manifested,  for  they  paid  religious 
homage  to  birds,  beasts,  and  reptiles.  In  such  idolatry  the 
idol  or  animal  was,  with  regard  to  the  majority,  the  ultimate 
object  of  worship.  Some  professed  to  regard  the  visible  image 
as  a  mere  symbol  of  the  real  object  of  their  adoration ;  while 
others  believed  that  the  gods  in  some  way  filled  these  idols,  and 
operated  through  them;  and  others  again,  that  the  universal 
principle  of  being  was  reverenced  under  these  manifestations. 
The  Scriptures  take  no  account  of  these  distinctions.  All 
who  bowed  down  to  stocks  and  stones  are  denounced  as  wor- 
shipping gods  which  their  own  hands  had  made ;  and  idolatry 
is  made  to  include  not  merely  the  worship  of  false  gods,  but  the 
worship  of  the  true  God  by  images.  The  universal  prevalence 
of  idolatry  among  the  heathen,  notwithstanding  the  revelation 
which  God  had  made  of  himself  in  his  works,  is  the  evidence 
which  Paul  adduces  to  prove  that  they  are  ungodly,  and  conscr 
quently  exposed  to  that  wrath  which  is  revealed  against  all 
ungodliness.  In  the  following  verses,  to  the  end  of  the  chap- 
ter, he  shows  that  they  are  unrighteous ;  that  as  the  con- 
sequence of  their  departure  from  God,  they  sank  into  the 
grossest  vices. 


60  ROMANS  I.  24. 

Verse  24.  Wherefore  also  he  gave  them,  in  their  lusts,  unto 
uneleanness.  The  most  natural  construction  of  this  passage  is 
to  connect  et(;  dxa&apcrcau  with  napeocoxzv,  he  gave  up  unto 
uneleanness.  We  have  the  same  construction  in  vs.  26,  28, 
and  frequently  elsewhere.  To  construct  Trapidajxeu  with  iv 
ra7c  iiTc&OfxiacQ,  as  Beza  and  others  do,  gives  indeed  a  good 
sense,  He  gave  them  up  to  their  desires  unto  uneleanness, 
i.  e.  so  that  they  became  unclean,  but  is  opposed  to  the  con- 
stant usage  of  the  New  Testament,  inasmuch  as  napadiotofju 
never  occurs  in  construction  with  iv.  If  the  former  construc- 
tion be  adopted,  Iv  tcuq  encd-ufxiacQ  may  be  rendered  as  in  our 
version,  through  their  lusts;  or  better  in  their  lusts;  iu  ex- 
pressing their  condition,  or  circumstances ;  them  in  their  lusts, 
i.  e.  being  in  them,  immersed  in  them.  To  dishonour,  tou 
dripd^ea&a:.  This  infinitive  with  too  may  depend  on  the  pre- 
ceding noun;  'the  uneleanness  of  dishonouring,'  &c.,  "quae 
cernebatur  in,"  &c.  Winer,  §  45.  4.  b.  But  as  the  infinitive 
with  the  genitive  article  is  so  frequently  used  to  express  design, 
or  simple  sequence,  it  is  better  to  make  it  depend  on  the  whole 
preceding  clause,  '  He  gave  them  up  to  uneleanness,  to  dis- 
honour,' i.  e.  either  in  order  that  they  might  dishonour,  or  so 
that  they  dishonoured,  &c.;  dTciJ.d^ea&ai  may  be  taken  either  as 
middle,  so  that  they  dishonoured  their  bodies;  or  as  passive,  so 
that  their  bodies  were  dishonoured.  The  former  best  suits  the 
context.  ^Ev  kauzol^  is  either  equivalent  to  iy  dXXi^Xoc^,  reci- 
procally, they  dishonoured  one  another,  as  to  their  bodies ;  or 
in  themselves,  dishonouring  their  bodies  in  themselves ;  "signi- 
ficantius  exprimit,"  says  Calvin,  "qu^m  profundas  et  inelui- 
biles  ignominiae  notas  corporibus  suis  inusserint." 

This  abandonment  of  the  heathen  to  the  dominion  of  sin 
is  represented  as  a  punitive  infliction.  They  forsook  God, 
deb  xai,  ^vherefore  also  he  gave  them  up  to  uneleanness.  This 
is  explained  as  a  simple  permission  on  the  part  of  God. 
But  it  removes  no  real  difiiculty.  If  God  permits  those  who 
forsake  him,  to  sink  into  vice,  he  does  it  intelligently  and  inten- 
tionally. The  language  of  the  apostle,  as  well  as  the  analogy 
of  Scripture,  demands  more  than  this.  It  is  at  least  a  judicial 
abandonment.  It  is  as  a  punishment  for  their  apostasy  that 
God  gives  men  up  to  the  power  of  sin.     Tradidit  Deus  ut  Justus 


ROMANS  I.  25.  $1) 

judex.  He  withdraws  from  the  wicked  the  restraints  of  his 
providence  and  grace,  and  gives  them  over  to  the  dominion  of 
sin.  God  is  presented  in  the  Bible  as  the  absolute  moral  and 
physical  ruler  of  the  world.  He  governs  all  things  according 
to  the  counsel  of  his  own  will  and  the  nature  of  his  creatures. 
What  happens  as  consequences  does  not  come  bj  chance,  but 
as  designed;  and  the  sequence  is  secured  by  his  control.  "It 
is  beyond  question,"  says  Tholuck,  "that,  according  to  the 
doctrine  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  sin  is  the  punish- 
ment of  sin."  So  the  Rabbins  teach,  "The  reward  of  a  good 
deed  is  a  good  deed,  and  of  an  evil  deed,  an  evil  deed."  This 
is  also  the  teaching  of  all  experience.  We  see  that  sin  fol- 
lows sin  as  an  avenger.  De  Wette  truly  says,  "Diese  Ansicht 
ist  nicht  bloss  jiidisch,  sondern  allgemein  wahr  vom  absoluten 
Standpunkte  der  Religion  aus."  "This  is  no  mere  Jewish 
doctrine,  but  it  is  universally  true  from  the  absolute  stand-point 
of  religion."  God  is  not  a  mere  idle  spectator  of  the  order  of 
events ;  he  is  at  once  the  moral  governor  and  efficient  controller 
of  all  things.  "Man  is  not  'a  virtue-machine,'  "  says  Meyer, 
"  when  God  rewards  virtue  with  virtue ;  neither  is  he  '  a  sin- 
machine,'  when  God  punishes  sin  with  sin."  Men  are  as  free 
in  sinning  as  they  are  in  obeying;  and  what  in  one  passage 
and  from  one  point  of  view,  is  properly  presented  as  the  work 
of  God,  in  another  passage  and  from  another  point  of  view,  is 
no  less  properly  presented  as  the  work  of  man.  What  is  here 
said  to  be  God's  work,  in  Eph.  iv.  19,  is  declared  to  be  the 
sij«ler's  own  work. 
«»^yfVERSB  25.  W7io  change,  (o7tiv£^.)  The  pronoun  has  a  causal 
*j'  sense,  being  such  as  those  who,  i.  e.  because  they  exchanged  the 
truth  of  Crod  for  a  lie.  The  construction  is  the  same  as  in 
ver.  23,  fiezrjXXa^au  iu,  they  exchanged  for,  not,  they  changed 
into.  The  truth  of  Gfod,  either  a  periphrase  for  the  true  God,  or 
the  truth  concerning  God,  i.  e.  right  conceptions  of  God.  For 
a  lie,  that  is,  either  a  false  god,  or  falsehood,  i.  e.  false  views 
of  God.  The  former  is  the  better  explanation.  The  glory  of 
God  is  God  himself  as  glorious,  and  the  truth  of  God,  in  this 
connection,  is  God  himself  as  true ;  that  is,  the  true  God.  In 
the  Old  Testament,  as  in  Jer.  xiii.  25,  xvi.  19,  the  gods  of  the 
heathen  are  spoken  of  as  lies.     Anything  which  is  not  what  it 


.^' 


62  ROMANS  I.  26. 

pretends  to  be,  or  what  it  is  supposed  to  be,  is  in  the  Scriptures 
P  called  a  lie.  The  proof  of  this  apostasy  is,  that  tliey  tvorshipijed 
{iasj^da&r^aau)  and  served  {iXdrpzuaav.)  These  words  are  often 
synonymous,  both  being  used  to  express  inward  reverence  and 
outward  worship ;  although  the  former  properly  expresses  the 
feeling,  and  the  latter  the  outward  service.  The  creature 
(xTcaei,)  not  the  creation,  but  any  particular  created  thing. 
This  noun  belongs,  in  sense,  to  both  the  preceding  verba, 
although  the  first  by  itself  would  require  the  accusative.  More 
than  the  Creator,  napa  rbv  XTiaauva,  i.  e.  beyond,  in  the  sense 
of  more  than,  or  in  the  sense  of  passing  by,  neglecting; 
"prgeterito  Creatore,"  as  Beza  translates.  The  latter  suits 
best.  Who  is  blessed  for  ever.  Amen.  Who,  notwithstanding 
the  neglect  of  the  heathen,  is  the  ever-blessed  God.  This  is 
the  natural  tribute  of  reverence  toward  the  God  whom  men  dis- 
honoured by  their  idolatry.  The  word  kuXoyrjTO^  is  by  Harless, 
Eph.  i.  3,  and  by  Meyer,  made  to  mean  praised,  as  the  Hebrew 
•^^in,  to  which  it  so  constantly  answers ;  not,  therefore,  worthy 
of  praise,  but  who  is  in  fact  the  object  of  praise  to  all  holy 
beings.  Bretschneider  (Lexicon,)  Tholuck,  and  others,  render 
it  " celebrandus,  venerandus."  Amen  is  properly  a  Hebrew 
adjective,  signifying  true  or  faithful.  At  the  beginning  of  a 
sentence  it  is  often  used  adverbially,  verily,  assuredly;  at  the 
end  of  a  sentence  it  is  used  to  express  assent,  it  is  true,  so  let  it 
be.  Paul  says  Amen  to  the  declaration  thaf  God  is  the  ever- 
blessed. 

Verse  26,  For  this  cause,  &c.  That  is,  because  they  wor- 
shipped the  creature  rather  than  the  Creator,  God  gave  them 
up  to  corrupt  affections.  Ildd^rj  d.xiiiiaz,  shameful  lusts,  pas- 
sions which  are  degrading,  and  the  indulgence  of  which  covers 
men  with  ignominy.  This  verse  is  therefore  an  amplification 
of  the  idea  expressed  in  ver.  24.  The  reasons  why  Paul  refers 
in  the  first  instance  to  the  sins  of  uncleanness,  in  illustration 
and  proof  of  the  degradation  of  the  heathen,  probably  were, 
that  those  sins  are  always  intimately  connected  with  idolatry, 
forming  at  times  even  a  part  of  the  service  rendered  to  the 
false  gods ;  that  in  turning  from  God  and  things  spiritual,  men 
naturally  sink  into  the  sensual ;  that  the  sins  in  question  are 
peculiarly  degrading;  and  that  they  were  the  most  notorious, 


ROMANS  I.  27,  28.  63 

prevalent,  and  openly  acknowledged  of  all  the  crimes  of  tlie 
heathen  world.  This  corruption  of  morals  was  confined  to  no 
one  class  or  sex.  The  description  given  by  profane  writers, 
of  the  moral  corruption  of  the  ante-Christian  ages,  is  in  all 
respects  as  revolting  as  that  presented  by  the  apostle.  Of  this 
the  citations  of  Wetstein  and  Grotius  furnish  abundant  proof. 
Paul  first  refers  to  the  degradation  of  females  among  the 
heathen,  because  they  are  always  the  last  to  be  aflFected  in  the 
decay  of  morals,  and  their  corruption  is  therefore  proof  that  all 
virtue  is  lost. 

Verse  27.  The  apostle  for  the  third  time  repeats  the  idea 
that  the  moral  degradation  of  the  heathen  was  a  punishment  of 
their  apostasy  from  God.  Receiving,  he  says,  in  themselves  the 
meet  recompense  of  their  error.  It  is  obvious  from  the  whole 
context  that  TtXdvr]  here  refers  to  the  sin  of  forsaking  the  true 
God ;  and  it  is  no  less  obvious  that  the  recompense  or  punish- 
ment of  this  apostasy  was  the  moral  degradation  which  he  had 
just  described. 

The  heathen  themselves  did  not  fail  to  see  the  intimate  con- 
nection between  impiety  and  vice.  Silius,  iv.  794.  "  Heu 
primge  scelerum  causae  mortalibus  gegris  naturam  nescire  Deum. 
Cicero  De  natura  Deorum,  12.  Haud  scio,  an,  pietate  adversus 
Deos  sublata,  fides  etiam  et  societas,  et  una  excellentissima 
virtus  justitia  tollatur."  See  Wetstein.  Those  therefore  who 
would  merge  religion  into  morality,  or  who  suppose  that  moral- 
ity can  be  sustained  without  religion,  are  more  ignorant  than 
the  heathen.  They  not  only  shut  their  eyes  to  all  the  teach- 
ings both  of  philosophy  and  of  history,  but  array  against  them- 
selves the  wrath  of  God,  who  has  revealed  his  purpose  to 
abandon  to  the  most  degrading  lusts  those  who  apostatize 
from  him. 

Verse  28.  And  as  they  did  not  think  it  worth  while  to  retain 
Q-od  in  their  knowledge,  he  gave  them  up  to  a  reprobate  mind. 
Another  repetition  of  the  sentiment  is  expressed  in  vs.  24,  26, 
that  God  abandons  those  who  abandon  him.  And  as,  xal 
xa&cix;.  The  cases  are  parallel ;  as  they  deserted  God,  so  God 
abandoned  them;  comp.  John  xvii.  2.  They  did  not  like,  oux 
Idoxifxaaav;  the  verb  means  to  try  or  put  to  the  test,  to  ex- 
amine, to  approve,  and,  dignum  habere,  to  regard  as  worthy. 


64  ROMANS  I.  29—31. 

1  Cor.  xvi.  3,  1  Thess.  ii.  4,  and  when  followed  by  an  infinitive, 
to  think  it  worth  while.  The  heathen  did  not  think  it  worth  the 
trouble  to  retain  the  knowledge  of  God.  They  considered  reli- 
gion as  useless,  and  supposed  they  could  live  without  God.  The 
phrase  i-^^icv  kv  iTzcyucoaec  is  stronger  than  simply  to  know;  both 
because  eTtc^-uaxn^,  full  knowledge,  is  stronger  than  yucoac^,  and 
because  e^j^aiu  iv  iTTiyi^coaec  is  stronger  than  iTTiyeyuaxTxecu.  The 
text  therefore  means  to  retain  in  accurate  or  practical  know- 
ledge. It  was  the  practical  recognition  of  the  only  true  God, 
whose  eternal  power  and  Godhead  are  revealed  in  his  works, 
that  men  were  unwilling  constantly  to  make.  Gfod  gave  them 
up  to  a  reprobate  mind.  Beza,  Bengel,  and  others,  give 
dddxifjto^  here  the  sense  of  judicii  expers,  incapable  of  judgment 
or  discernment.  But  this  is  contrary  to  usage,  and  contrary  to 
the  etymology  of  the  word.  Joxc/ioc;,  from  di^o/xai,  means 
receivable,  worthy  of  being  received;  and  ddoxcfioi;,  worthy  of 
rejection,  reprobate.  To  do  things  not  becoming;  that  is,  to  do 
things  not  becoming  the  nature  and  duties  of  man.  Of  the 
things  meant,  the  following  verses  contain  a  long  and  painful 
catalogue.  IJoceiv  is  the  exegetical  infinitive,  to  do,  that  is,  so 
that  they  did.  It  expresses  the  consequence  of  the  dereliction 
just  spoken  of,  and  the  natural  fruit  of  a  reprobate  mind. 

Verses  29 — 31.  Being  filled  with  all  unrighteousness,  forni- 
cation, wickedness,  &c.  The  accusative  n^TzXrjpojfxevooq  is  con- 
nected with  abToh(;  of  the  preceding  verse.  He  gave  them  up, 
filled  with  all  unrighteousness;  or  it  depends  on  the  preceding 
infinitive  Tzocelv,  so  that  they,  filled  with  all  unrighteousness, 
should  commit,  &c.  It  is  not  so  connected  with  TzapidcDxev,  as 
to  imply  that  God  gave  them  up  after  they  were  thus  corrupt, 
but  it  is  so  connected  with  TToceiv  as  to  express  the  consequence 
of  God's  abandoning  them  to  do  the  things  which  are  not  con- 
venient. The  crimes  here  mentioned  were  not  of  rare  occur- 
rence. The  heathen  were  filled  with  them.  They  not  only 
abounded,  but  in  many  cases  were  palliated  and  even  justified. 
Dark  as  the  picture  here  drawn  is,  it  is  not  so  dark  as  that  pre- 
sented by  the  most  distinguished  Greek  and  Latin  authors,  of 
their  own  countrymen.  Commentators  have  collected  a  fearful 
array  of  passages  from  the  ancient  writers,  which  more  than 
sustain  the  account  given  by  the  apostle.     We  select  a  single 


ROMANS  I.  29—31.  65 

passage  from  Senca  de  Ira,  II.  8 :  "  Omnia  sceleribus  ac  vitiis 
plena  sunt;  plus  committitur  quam  quod  possit  coercitione 
sanari.  Certatur  ingenti  quodam  nequitise  certamine;  major 
quotidie  peccandi  cupiditas,  minor  verecundia  est,  Expulso 
melioris  aequiorisque  respectu,  quocunque  visum  est,  libido  se 
impingit;  nee  furtiva  jam  scelera  sunt,  pr.ieter  oculos  eunt. 
Adeoque  in  publicum  missa  nequitia  est,  et  in  omnium  pectori- 
bus  evaluit,  ut  innocentia  non  rara,  sed  nulla  sit.  Numquid  enim 
singuli  aut  pauci  rupere  legem?  undique,  velut  signo  dato,  ad 
fas  nefasque  miscendum  coorti  sunt."  What  Paul  says  of  the 
ancient  heathen  world,  is  found  to  be  true  in  all  its  essential 
features  of  men  of  all  generations.  Wherever  men  have  ex- 
isted, there  have  they  shown  themselves  to  be  sinners,  ungodly, 
and  unrighteous,  and  therefore  justly  exposed  to  the  wrath  of 
God.  Of  the  vices  with  which  the  heathen  were  filled,  nopveca 
stands  first  as  the  most  prominent;  novr^pca,  malice,  the  dispo- 
sition to  inflict  evil;  TiXeove^'ta,  rapacity,  the  desire  to  have 
more  than  is  our  due ;  xax'ta,  malignity,  malice  in  exercise ; 
fd-ovoi;  and  fouo^,  envy  and  murder,  united  either  from  simi- 
larity in  sound,  or  because  the  former  tends  to  the  latter ;  epc^, 
doXoi;,  contention  and  fraud,  nearly  related  evils.  The  primary 
meaning  of  doXoi;  is  a  bait,  food  exposed  to  entrap  an  animal ; 
then  the  disposition  to  deceive,  or  an  act  of  deception ;  xaxo- 
Tj&da  [xaxoQ  and  'fj&o:;,)  malevolence,  the  disposition  to  make  the 
worst  of  everything ;  (pc&opcav^;:,  a  ivJiisperer,  clandestine  slan- 
derer ;  xaxdlaloc,,  a  detractor,  one  who  speaks  against  others ; 
d^toaruyric.,  hateful  to  Crod,  or  hating  Grod.  Usage  is  in  favour 
of  the  passive  sense,  the  connection  of  the  active.  All  wicked 
men,  and  not  any  one  particular  class,  are  the  objects  of  the 
divine  displeasure.  To  meet  this  difiiculty,  Meyer  proposes  to 
make  this  word  a  mere  qualification  of  the  preceding,  Grod- 
ahhorred  detractors.  This,  however,  is  out  of  keeping  with  the 
whole  passage.  The  great  majority  of  commentators  adopt  the 
active  sense.  Then  follow  three  designations,  expressive  of  the 
different  forms  of  pride,  u^pcarai,  the  insolent;  bT:s.prj(pdvoc,  the 
self-conceited;  dla^oveq,  boasters;  i<p£op£Tae  xaxcoi^,  inventors  of 
crimes;  disobedient  to  parents.  That  such  should  be  included 
in  this  fearful  list,  shows  the  light  in  which  filial  disobedience 
is  regarded  by  the  sacred  writers.  In  ver.  31,  all  the  words 
5 


66  ROMANS  I.  32. 

begin  with  the  a  privative,  dauuezou^,  without  {auvemi;)  insight 
into  moral  or  religious  things,  i.  e.  blinded,  besotted,  so  as  to 
think  evil  good,  and  good  evil ;  daoud-szou^,  perfidious;  Affvop- 
yoi)^,  those  in  whom  the  natural  affection  for  parents  or  child- 
ren is  suppressed ;  danovdooz,  implacable;  dpsXeyjpouat;,  without 
pity. 

Verse  32.  Who  well  knowing  the  righteous  judgment  of 
Crod;  that  is,  although  they  well  knoiv,  &c.  They  were  (olnvei;) 
such  as  who.  The  heathen  whose  acts  had  been  just  described, 
are  declared  to  be,  Men  who,  although  they  knew  the  righteous 
judgment,  &c.,  [dcxaicopd)  decree,  a  declaration  of  what  is  right 
and  just ;  and  dua'tcopa  rod  deou  is  the  declaration  of  God  as  to 
what  is  right  and  just.  The  import  of  this  declaration  is  con- 
tained in  the  clause,  that  they  who  do  {npdaaooac,  commit)  such 
things  are  worthy  of  death.  By  death  here,  as  often  elsewhere, 
is  meant  punishment,  in  the  general  meaning  of  that  word.  It 
expresses  the  penalty  of  the  law,  and  includes  all  evil  inflicted 
for  the  satisfaction  of  justice.  Paul  therefore  teaches  that  the 
heathen  knew  they  deserved  punishment  for  their  crimes,  or  in 
other  words,  that  they  Avere  justly  exposed  to  the  wrath  of  God, 
which  was  revealed  against  all  ungodliness  and  unrighteousness 
of  men.  The  source  of  this  knowledge  he  explains  in  the  fol- 
lowing chapter,  ver.  14.  It  was  a  knowledge  written  on  their 
hearts,  or  included  in  the  constitution  of  their  nature;  it  was 
implied  in  their  being  moral  agents.  As  he  had  before  shown 
that  the  impiety  of  the  heathen  was  without  excuse,  inasmuch 
as  they  had  a  knowledge  of  the  true  God,  so  here  he  shows  that 
their  immorality  was  inexcusable,  since  their  sins  were  not  com- 
mitted in  ignorance  of  their  nature  or  desert.  This  passage 
also  shows  that  the  judicial  abandonment  of  God  does  not 
destroy  the  free  agency  or  responsibility  of  men.  They  are 
given  up  to  work  iniquity,  and  yet  know  that  they  deserve 
death  for  what  they  do.  The  stream  which  carries  them  away 
is  not  without,  but  within.  It  is  their  own  corrupt  nature.  It 
is  themselves.  Notwithstanding  this  knowledge  of  the  ill-desert 
of  the  crimes  above  enumerated,  they  not  only  commit  them, 
hut  approve  of  those  who  do  (or  practise)  them.  This  is  the 
lowest  point  of  degradation.  To  sin,  even  in  the  heat  of  pas- 
sion, is  evil ;  but  to  delight  in  the  sins  of  others,  shows  that 


ROMANS  I.  18—32.  6T 

men  are  of  set  purpose  and  fixed  preference,  wicked.  Such  is 
the  apostle's  argument  to  prove  that  the  heathen  are  all  under 
sin,  that  they  are  justly  chargeable  with  ungodliness  and 
unrighteousness,  and  consequently  exposed  to  the  wrath  of 
God. 

DOCTRINE. 

1.  The  punitive  justice  of  God  is  an  essential  attribute  of  his 
nature.  This  attribute  renders  the  punishment  of  sin  neces- 
sary, and  is  the  foundation  of  the  need  of  a  vicarious  atone- 
ment in  order  to  the  pardon  of  sinners.  This  doctrine  the 
apostle  assumes  as  a  first  principle,  and  makes  it  the  basis  of 
his  whole  exposition  of  the  doctrine  of  justification,  ver.  18. 

2.  That  sin  is  a  proper  object  of  punishment,  and  that, 
under  the  righteous  government  of  God,  it  will  be  punished,  are 
moral  axioms,  which  have  "a  self-evidencing  light,"  whenever 
proposed  to  the  moral  sense  of  men,  vs.  18,  32. 

3.  God  has  never  left  himself  without  a  witness  among  his 
rational  creatures.  Both  in  reference  to  his  own  nature  and  to 
the  rule  of  duty,  he  has,  in  his  works  and  in  the  human  heart, 
given  sufficient  light  to  render  the  impiety  and  immorality  of 
men  inexcusable,  vs.  19,  20,  32. 

4.  Natural  religion  is  not  a  sufficient  guide  to  salvation. 
What  individual  or  what  nation  has  it  ever  led  to  right  views 
of  God  or  of  his  law?  The  experience  of  the  whole  world, 
under  all  the  variety  of  circumstances  in  which  men  have 
existed,  proves  its  insufficiency;  and,  consequently,  the  neces- 
sity of  a  special  divine  revelation,  vs.  21 — 23. 

5.  The  heathen,  who  have  only  the  revelation  of  God  in  his 
works  and  in  their  own  hearts,  aided  by  the  obscure  tradition- 
ary knowledge  which  has  come  down  to  them,  need  the  gospel. 
In  point  of  fact,  the  light  which  they  enjoy  does  not  lead  them 
to  God  and  holiness,  vs.  21 — 23. 

6.  Error  (on  moral  and  religious  subjects)  has  its  root  in 
depravity.  Men  are  ignorant  of  God  and  duty,  because  they 
do  not  like  to  retain  him  in  their  knowledge,  vs.  21,  28. 

7.  God  often  punishes  one  sin  by  abandoning  the  sinner  to 
the  commission  of  others.  Paul  repeats  this  idea  three  times, 
vs.  24,  26,  28.     This  judicial  abandonment  is  consistent  with 


68  ROMANS  I.  18—32. 

the  holiness  of  God  and  the  free  agency  of  man.  God  does  not 
impel  or  entice  to  evil.  He  ceases  to  restrain.  He  says  of  the 
sinner,  Let  him  alone,  vs.  24 — 28. 

8.  Religion  is  the  only  true  foundation,  and  the  only  effectual 
safeguard  for  morality.  Those  who  abandon  God,  he  abandons. 
Irreligion  and  immorality,  therefore,  have  ever  been  found  inse- 
parably connected,  vs.  24 — 28. 

9.  It  evinces,  in  general,  greater  depravity  to  encourage 
others  in  the  commission  of  crimes,  and  to  rejoice  in  their  com- 
mission, than  to  commit  them  one's  self,  ver.  32. 

10.  The  most  reprobate  sinner  carries  about  with  him  a 
knowledge  of  his  just  exposure  to  the  wrath  of  God.  Con- 
science can  never  be  entirely  extirpated,  ver.  32. 

REMARKS. 

1.  It  lies  in  the  very  nature  of  sin,  that  it  should  be  inex- 
cusable, and  worthy  of  punishment.  Instead,  therefore,  of 
palliating  its  enormity,  we  should  endeavour  to  escape  from  its 
penalty,  vs.  18,  32. 

2.  As  the  works  of  God  reveal  his  eternal  power  and  God- 
head, we  should  accustom  ourselves  to  see  in  them  the  mani- 
festations of  his  perfections,  vs.  18 — 21. 

3.  The  human  intellect  is  as  erring  as  the  human  heart.  We 
can  no  more  find  truth  than  holiness,  when  estranged  from 
Gqd;  even  as  we  lose  both  light  and  heat,  when  we  depart 
from  the  sun.  Those,  in  every  age,  have  sunk  deepest  into 
folly,  who  have  relied  most  on  their  own  understandings.  "  In 
thy  light  only,  0  God,  can  we  see  light,"  ver.  21,  &c. 

4.  If  the  sins  of  the  heathen,  committed  under  the  feeble  light 
of  nature,  be  inexcusable,  how  great  must  be  the  aggravation 
of  those  committed  under  the  light  of  the  Scriptures,  ver.  20. 

5.  As  the  light  of  nature  is  insufficient  to  lead  the  heathen 
to  God  and  holiness,  it  is  one  of  the  most  obvious  and  urgent 
of  our  duties  to  send  them  the  light  of  the  Bible,  vs.  20 — 23. 

6.  Men  should  remember  that  their  security  from  open  and 
gross  sins  is  not  in  themselves,  but  in  God ;  and  they  should 
regard  as  the  worst  of  punishments,  his  withdrawing  from  them 
his  Holy  Spirit,  vs.  24—28. 


ROMANS  II.  1—16.  69 

7.  Sins  of  uncleanness  are  peculiarly  debasing  and  demoral- 
izing. To  be  preserved  from  them  is  mentioned  in  Scripture 
as  a  mark  of  the  divine  favour,  Eccl.  vii.  26,  Prov.  xxii.  14 ;  to 
be  abandoned  to  them,  as  a  mark  of  reprobation. 

8.  To  take  pleasure  in  those  who  do  good,  makes  us  better; 
as  to  delight  in  those  who  do  evil,  is  the  surest  way  to  become 
even  more  degraded  than  they  ^re  themselves,  ver.  32. 


CHAPTER    II. 

CONTENTS. 

The  object  of  this  chapter  is  to  establish  the  same  charges 
against  the  Jews,  which  had  just  been  proved  against  the 
Gentiles ;  to  show  that  they  also  were  exposed  to  the  wrath  of 
God.  It  consists  of  three  parts.  The  first  contains  an  exhi- 
bition of  those  simple  principles  of  justice  upon  which  all  men 
are  to  be  judged,  vs.  1 — 16.  The  second  is  an  application  of 
these  principles  to  the  case  of  the  Jews,  vs.  17 — 24.  The  third 
is  an  exhibition  of  the  true  nature  and  design  of  circumcision, 
intended  to  show  that  the  Jews  could  not  expect  exemption  on 
the  ground  of  that  rite,  vs.  25 — 39. 


ROMANS   II.  1—16. 

ANALYSIS. 

That  men  so  impious  and  immoral,  as  those  described  in  the 
preceding  chapter,  deserved  the  divine  displeasure,  and  could 
never,  by  their  own  works,  secure  the  favour  of  God,  the  Jew 
was  prepared  readily  to  admit.  But  might  there  not  be  a  set 
of  men,  who,  in  virtue  of  some  promise  on  the  part  of  God,  or 
of  the  performance  of  some  special  duties,  could  claim  exemp- 
tion from  the  execution  of  God's  purpose  to  punish  all  sin? 
To  determine  this  point,  it  was  necessary  to  consider  a  little 
more   fully  the  justice   of  God,  in  order   to   see  whether  it 


70  ROMANS  II.  1. 

admitted  of  impunity  to  sinners  on  the  ground  supposed.  This 
first  section  of  the  chapter,  therefore,  is  employed  in  expanding 
the  principle  of  ver.  18  of  the  first  chapter.  It  contains  a 
development  of  those  principles  of  justice  which  commend 
themselves  at  once  to  every  man's  conscience.  The  first  is, 
that  he  who  condemns  in  others  what  he  does  himself,  does 
thereby  condemn  himself,  ver.  1.  The  second,  that  God's 
judgments  are  according  to  the  truth  or  real  state  of  the  case, 
ver.  2.  The  third,  that  the  special  goodness  of  God,  manifested 
towards  any  individual  or  people,  forms  no  ground  of  exemp- 
tion from  merited  punishment ;  but  being  designed  to  lead  them 
to  repentance,  when  misimproved  aggravates  their  condemna- 
tion, vs.  3 — 5.  The  fourth,  that  the  ground  of  judgment  is  the 
works,  not  the  external  relations  or  professions  of  men :  God 
will  punish  the  wicked  and  reward  the  good,  whether  Jew  or 
Gentile,  without  the  least  respect  of  persons,  vs.  6 — 11.  The 
fifth,  that  the  standard  of  judgment  is  the  light  which  men  have 
severally  enjoyed-  Those  having  a  written  law  shall  be  judged 
by  it,  and  those  who  have  only  the  law  written  on  their  hearts, 
(and  that  the  heathen  have  such  a  law  is  proved  by  the  opera- 
tions of  conscience,  vs.  13 — 15,)  shall  be  judged  by  that  law, 
ver.  12.  These  are  the  principles  according  to  which  all  men 
are  to  be  judged  in  the  last  day,  by  Jesus  Christ,  ver.  16. 


COMMENTARY. 

Verse  1.  In  order  to  appreciate  the  force  of  the  apostle's 
reasoning  in  this  and  the  following  verses,  it  should  be  remem- 
bered that  the  principal  ground  on  which  the  Jews  expected 
acceptance  with  God,  was  the  covenant  which  he  had  made 
with  their  father  Abraham,  in  which  he  promised  to  be  a  God 
to  him  and  to  his  seed  after  him.  They  understood  this  pro- 
mise to  secure  salvation  of  all  who  retained  their  connection 
with  Abraham,  by  the  observance  of  the  law  and  the  rite  of 
circumcision.  They  expected,  therefore,  to  be  regarded  and 
treated  not  so  much  as  individuals,  each  being  dealt  with 
according  to  his  personal  character,  but  as  a  community  to 
whom  salvation  was  secured  by  the  promise  made  to  Abraham. 
Paul  begins  his  argument  at  a  distance ;  he  states  his  principles 


ROMANS  II.  1.  71 

in  such  general  terms,  that  they  could  not  fail  to  secure  the 
assent  of  the  Jew,  before  he  was  aware  of  their  application  to 
himself.  That  the  Jews  are  addressed  in  this  chapter  is  evident 
from  the  whole  strain  of  the  argument,  and  from  the  express 
application  of  the  reasoning  of  the  case  of  the  Jews,  from 
ver.  17  onward.  This  view  of  the  passage  is  now  generally 
adopted,  though  many  of  the  earlier  commentators  supposed 
either  that  no  particular  class  of  persons  is  here  addressed,  or 
that  the  apostle  has  in  view  the  better  portion  of  the  heathen, 
or  at  least  those  who  did  not  seem  to  approve  of  the  crimes 
mentioned  in  the  preceding  chapter,  but  rather  condemned 
them. 

The  connection  between  this  chapter  and  what  precedes,  as 
indicated  by  the  particle  dco,  wherefore,  is  somewhat  doubtful. 
Some  suppose  the  inference  to  be  drawn  from  the  doctrine 
taught  from  ver.  18  of  the  preceding  chapter.  God  is  just,  and 
determined  to  punish  all  unrighteousness  and  ungodliness  of 
men ;  wherefore  they  are  without  excuse  who  commit  the  sins 
which  they  condemn  in  others.  In  this  case,  however,  the  con- 
clusion is  not  exactly  in  the  form  suited  to  the  premises.  It  is 
not  so  much  the  inexcusableness  of  sinners  as  the  exposure  to 
punishment,  that  follows  from  the  justice  of  God.  Most  com- 
mentators therefore  consider  the  inference  as  drawn  from  the 
last  verse  of  the  preceding  chapter.  It  is  there  said  that  all 
men  know  that  those  who  sin  are  worthy  of  death;  and  the 
inference  is,  that  they  who  commit  sin  are  without  excuse,  how- 
ever censorious  their  self-conceit  may  render  them  towards 
others.  Every  one  who  judges.  Though  from  what  follows  it 
is  plain  that  the  Jews  are  here  intended,  yet  for  the  reasons 
above  stated  the  proposition  is  made  general.  Kphcou,  Judging; 
but  by  implication,  condemning.  For  wherein  thou  judgest 
another,  thou  condemnest  thyself.  Wherein  {ev  (p,)  either  in 
the  thing  which,  or  thereby,  i.  e.  in  the  same  judgment,  or 
whilst.  See  Mark  ii.  19,  John  v.  7.  The  reason  of  this  asser- 
tion is  given  in  the  following  clause,  for  thou  that  judgest  doest 
the  same  things.  It  is  the  thing  done  which  is  the  ground  of 
condemnation;  and  therefore  he  who  condemns  the  act,  con- 
demns the  agent,  whether  the  agent  be  himself  or  some  one 
else,  whether  he  be  a  Jew  or  a  Gentile. 


73  ROMANS  II.  2,  3. 

Verse  2.  But  we  Tcnow.  That  is,  however  perverse  and 
partial  may  be  the  judgment  you  pass  on  yourself,  we  know,  &c. 
We  does  not  refer  to  the  Jews,  as  peculiarly  instructed,  but  to 
all  men.  Every  one  knows.  The  proposition  contained  in 
this  verse  is:  The  judgment  of  Gfod  is  against  those  ivho  do 
such  things.  That  is,  however  they  may  excuse  themselves, 
God  will  judge  them.  The  words  xara  dhrj^ecav,  therefore,  do 
not  form  the  predicate  of  the  sentence,  as  though  the  sense 
were.  The  judgment  of  God  is  according  to  truth.  The  mean- 
ing rather  is,  the  judgment  of  God,  which  is  according  to  truth, 
is  against  those,  &c.  There  are  two  things  therefore  asserted, 
the  certainty  of  this  divine  judgment,  and  its  being  according 
to  truth,  i.  e.  without  error,  without  respect  of  persons.  It  is 
not  founded  upon  mere  appearances  or  professions,  but  upon 
the  real  truth  of  the  case.  Comp.  Prov.  xxix.  14,  kv  al-qd-tia 
xfnvcDV  Tczoiyooz^  and  John  viii.  16,  jJ  xpiaiz  -q  ifj.rj  dXrjdij(;  iazcv. 
This  verse  then  contains  the  second  general  principle  of  justice, 
according  to  which  all  men,  whether  Jews  or  Gentiles,  are  to  be 
judged.  The  whole  hope  of  the  Jews  was  founded  on  the 
assumption  that  the  judgment  of  God  regarding  them  would  be 
guided  by  some  other  rule  than  truth.  He  was  not  to  judge 
them  according  to  their  real  merits,  but  according  to  their 
national  and  ecclesiastical  relations,  just  as  men  now  hope  to 
be  saved  because  they  belong  to  the  true  Church. 

Verse  3.  But  thinkest  thou  this,  0  man,  that  judgest,  &c. 
The  truth  that  God's  judgment  is  just,  and  will  fall  on  those 
who  themselves  commit  the  sins  which  they  condemn  in  others, 
is  so  plain,  that  the  apostle  exclaims  at  the  folly  of  those  who 
seem  to  deny  it.  The  emphasis  lies  on  the  word  thou,  in  the 
middle  of  the  verse.  Dost  thou  think  that  thou,  a  Jew,  and 
because  a  Jew,  shalt  escape  the  righteous  judgment  of  God? 
Shalt  escape,  ix<peu^7j.  "Every  one,"  says  Bengel,  "who  is 
arraigned,  (peuysc,  tries  to  escape;  he  who  is  acquitted,  exipeuyse, 
escapes."  In  ver.  1,  the  apostle  had  shown  that  the  man 
who  did  what  he  condemned  in  others,  condemned  himself. 
"If  then,"  as  Theophylact  says,  "he  cannot  escape  his  own 
judgment,  how  can  he  escape  the  judgment  of  God?  If 
forced  to  condemn  ourselves,  how  much  more  will  the  infi- 
nitely Holy  condemn  us?"     The  ground  on  which  this  false 


ROMANS  II.  4.  73 

and  absurd  expectation  rested  is  mentioned  in  the   following 
verse : 

Verse  4.  Or  despisest  thou  the  riches  of  his  goodness,  and 
forbearance,  and  long-suffering?  That  is,  admitting  the  general 
principle,  that  those  who  do  what  they  condemn  in  others  are 
themselves  exposed  to  condemnation,  do  you  expect  exemption 
on  the  ground  of  the  peculiar  goodness  of  God  ?  That  this  was 
the  expectation  of  the  Jews  is  plain  from  the  apostle's  argu- 
ment here  and  in  the  following  chapter,  and  from  chap.  ix. 
and  xi.  Comp.  also  Matt.  iii.  9,  "  Think  not  to  say,  We  have 
Abraham  to  our  father,"  and  John  viii.  33.  Despisest.  To 
despise,  •Aazaippovzlv,  is  to  form  a  low  estimate  of.  They 
despise  the  goodness  of  God,  who  form  such  a  wrong  estimate 
of  it,  as  to  suppose  that  it  gives  them  a  license  to  sin;  who 
imagine  that  he  will  not  punish,  either  because  he  long  for- 
bears, or  because  his  goodness  toAvards  us  is  so  great  that  we 
shall  escape,  though  others  perish.  The  words  y^pr^aroTrji:,  avoyfj^ 
and  fiaxpo&o[j.ia,  express  the  Divine  goodness  under  different 
aspects.  The  first  means  kindness  in  general,  as  expressed  in 
giving  favours ;  the  second,  patience ;  the  third,  forbearance, 
slowness  in  the  infliction  of  punishment.  The  reason  why  the 
Jews,  as  referred  to  by  the  apostle,  and  men  in  general,  thus 
abuse  the  goodness  of  God,  is  expressed  by  the  clause,  not 
knowing  that  the  goodness  of  Grod  leadeth  thee  to  repentance. 
'"Ayvoajv,  not  knowing,  not  understanding ;  and  here,  not  com- 
prehending the  true  nature  and  design  of.  Men  abuse  the 
goodness  of  God,  because  they  do  not  rightly  apprehend  that 
instead  of  indicating  a  purpose  not  to  punish,  it  is  designed  to 
lead  them  to  forsake  their  sins.  The  goodness  of  God  leads  us 
to  repentance,  because  it  shows  us  our  duty  towards  a  Being 
who  is  so  kind,  and  because  it  gives  us  ground  to  hope  for 
acceptance.  "The  word  dysc,  leads,''  says  Dr.  Wordsworth, 
Canon  of  Westminster,  in  his  elegant  and  scholarly  work  on 
the  Greek  Testament,  "  intimates  not  only  the  will  of  God,  but 
the  will  of  man.  God  leads,  but  man  may  refuse  to  be  led: 
'Deus  ducit  volentem  duci,'  as  Bengel  says,  '  ducit  suaviter 
pon  cogit  necessitate.'  "  Very  true;  but  who  gives  the  will  to 
be  led  ?  Is  there  no  preventing  grace  ?  Does  not  God  work  in 
us  to  will,  as  well  as  to  do  ?     Surely  there  is  such  a  thing  as 


74  ROMANS  11.  5,  6. 

being  made  willing  without  being  forced.  There  is  a  middle 
ground  between  moral  suasion  and  coercion.  God  supersedes 
the  necessity  of  forcing,  by  making  us  willing  in  the  day  of  his 
power.  The  apostle,  however,  is  not  here  speaking  of  gracious 
influence,  but.  of  the  moral  tendencies  of  providential  dis- 
pensations. 

Verse  5.  The  goodness  of  God,  so  far  from  being  a  ground 
of  reasonable  expectation  that  we  shall  ultimately  escape 
punishment,  becomes,  when  abused,  an  aggravation  of  our 
guilt.  This  principle  the  apostle  here  applies  to  the  Jews, 
who,  through  their  abuse  of  the  peculiar  mercy  of  God,  were 
treasuring  up  wrath  for  themselves.  Kara  dk  rrjv  axXrjporr^zd 
aoo,  after  thy  hardness,  i.  e.  as  might  be  expected  from  thy 
hardness ;  agreeably  to  its  nature  and  degree — xal  dfierauorjtov 
xapdiav,  heart  incapable  of  repentance.  "  'A/xerapor^TOi;,  vim 
activam  habet,  animus,  qui  resipicere  non  potest,  poenitere 
nescius.  Enervat  hunc  locum  Grotius  quum  explicat,  animus, 
qui  poenitentiam  non  agit."  Fritzsche.  To  treasure  up  is  to 
lay  up  little  by  little,  and  thus  accumulate  a  store  of  anything, 
whether  good  or  evil.  The  abusers  of  God's  goodness  accumu- 
late a  store  of  wrath  for  themselves.  ^Ev  ^p.spa  opyrji;  is  com- 
monly rendered  unto  the  day  of  wrath ;  but  this  unnecessarily 
gives  iir  the  force  of  ec(;.  It  is  better,  with  De  Wette,  Meyer, 
and  others,  to  connect  iv  with  dpyr^v,  '  wrath  at  or  on  the  day 
of  wrath.'  They  treasure  up  for  themselves  wrath  at  that  day 
when  wrath  shall  be  manifested.  That  day  is  further  described 
as  the  day  anoxaX6(pza)Q  ocxoioxpcaca^  zou  dead,  of  the  revelation 
of  the  righteous  judgmsnt  of  God.  Some  manuscripts  insert 
xac  between  (hzoxaXoipeon^  and  dcxouoxpcatai;;  which  reading  is 
preferred  by  Bengel,  Wetstein,  Mill,  and  Knapp.  The  sense 
then  is,  the  day  of  revelation,  and  of  the  righteous  judgment 
of  Grod.  The  day  of  revelation,  viz.  of  Christ,  whose  second 
coming  is  always  associated  in  Scripture  with  the  final  judg- 
ment ;  and  therefore  the  day  of  revelation  may  well  express 
the  day  of  judgment.  But  as  the  phrase  "  day  of  revelation" 
nowhere  else  occurs  in  this  sense,  and  as  the  oldest  manuscripts 
are  in  favour  of  the  common  text,  it  should  be  allowed  to  stand. 

Verse  6.    Who  will  render  to  every  man  according  to  his 
works.     This   is   the    fourth    important    principle    which    the 


ROMANS  II.  6.  75 

apostle  teaches  us  regulates  the  judgment  of  God.  He  will  judge 
men  neither  according  to  their  professions  nor  their  relations, 
but  according  to  their  works.  The  question  at  his  bar  will  be, 
not  whether  a  man  is  a  Jew  or  a  Gentile,  whether  he  belongs  to 
the  chosen  people  or  to  the  heathen  world,  but  whether  he  has 
obeyed  the  law.  This  principle  is  amplified  and  applied  in 
what  follows,  in  vs.  7 — 11.  The  question  has  been  asked,  how 
the  declaration  that  God  will  render  to  every  man,  whether  Jew 
or  Gentile,  according  to  his  works — to  the  good,  eternal  life,  to 
the  wicked,  indignation  and  wrath — is  to  be  reconciled  with  the 
apostle's  doctrine,  that  no  man  is  justified  by  works,  that  right- 
eousness and  life  are  not  by  works,  but  by  faith,  and  through 
grace.  In  answering  this  question,  two  things  are  to  be  borne 
in  mind.  The  first  is,  that  notwithstanding  the  doctrine  of 
gratuitous  justification,  and  in  perfect  consistency  with  it,  the 
apostle  still  teaches  that  the  retributions  of  eternity  are  accord- 
ing to  our  works.  The  good  only  are  saved,  and  the  wicked 
only  are  condemned.  "For  we  must  all  appear  before  the 
judgment-seat  of  Christ,  that  every  one  may  receive  the  things 
done  in  his  body,  whether  good  or  bad,"  2  Cor.  v.  10,  Eph.  vi.  8. 
"Reproborum,"  says  Calvin,  "malitiam  justa  ultione  si  puniet 
Dominus,  rependet  illis  quod  meriti  sunt.  Rursum  quia  sancti- 
ficat,  quos  olim  statuit  glorificare,  in  illis  quoque  bona  opera 
coronabit,  sed  non  pro  merito."  With  this  accord  the  words 
of  Bernard:  "Bona  opera  sunt  via  regni,  non  causa  regnandi." 
The  wicked  will  be  punished  on  account  of  their  works,  and^  U 
according  to  their  works ;  the  righteous  will  be  rewarded,  not/ 
on  account  of,  but  according  to  their  works.  Good  works  are 
to  them  the  evidence  of  their  belonging  to  that  cla%s  to  whom, 
for  Christ's  sake,  eternal  life  is  graciously  awarded ;  and  they 
are,  in  some  sense  and  to  some  extent,  the  measure  of  that 
reward.  But  it  is  more  pertinent  to  remark,  in  the  second 
place,  that  the  apostle  is  not  here  teaching  the  method 
of  justification,  but  is  laying  down  those  general  principles 
of  justice,  according  to  which,  irrespective  of  the  gospel,  all 
men  are  to  be  judged.  He  is  expounding  the  law,  not  the 
gospel.  And  as  the  law  not  only  says  that  death  is  the  wages 
of  sin,  but  also  that  those  who  keep  its  precepts  shall  live  by 
them,  so  the  apostle  says,  that  God  will  punish  the  wicked  and 


76  ROMANS  11.  7,  8. 

reward  the  righteous.  This  is  perfectly  consistent  with  what 
he  afterwards  teaches,  that  there  are  none  righteous;  that 
there  are  none  who  so  obey  the  law  as  to  be  entitled  to  the  life 
which  it  promises ;  and  that  for  such  the  gospel  provides  a  plan 
of  justification  without  works,  a  plan  for  saving  those  whom  the 
law  condemns.  He  is  here  combatting  the  false  hopes  of  the 
Jews,  who,  though  trusting  to  the  law,  were  by  the  principles 
of  the  law  exposed  to  condemnation.  This  he  does  to  drive 
them  from  this  false  dependence,  and  to  show  them  that  neither 
Jew  nor  Gentile  can  be  justified  before  the  bar  of  that  God, 
who,  while  he  promises  eternal  life  to  the  obedient,  has  revealed 
his  purpose  to  punish  the  disobedient.  All  therefore  that  this 
passage  teaches  is,  that  irrespective  of  the  gospel,  to  those  who 
either  never  heard  of  it,  or  who  having  heard,  reject  it,  the 
principle  of  judgment  will  be  law. 

Verses  7,  8.  The  principle  laid  down  in  ver.  6,  is  here 
amplified.  God  will  render  eternal  life  to  the  good,  indignation 
and  wrath  to  the  wicked,  without  distinction  of  persons ;  to  the 
Jews  no  less  than  to  the  Gentiles.  Though  the  sense  of  these 
verses  is  plain,  there  is  great  difi'erence  of  opinion  as  to  the 
grammatical  construction.  The  explanation  adopted  by  our 
translators  is  perhaps  the  most  natural,  and  is  the  one  which  is 
most  generally  followed.  To  the  verb  dTrodaxrsc  of  ver.  6, 
belong  the  two  accusatives,  ^corju  aiwvcov,  and  ^u/xou  xac  oppju; 
and  the  two  datives,  to7i;  fikv — ^^rjTOuai  and  ro7c  <5e  i^  ipc&£ca(;. 
The  accusatives  doiai'  xa'c  Tifirjn  xai  d.(pd-apaiav  then  of  course 
depend  on  ^t^toixtc,  and  xad^  bnofxovrjv  ipyou  d.ya&od  is  an 
adverbial  qualification.  The  passage  then  reads  thus:  "To 
those,  who  through  perseverance  in  good  works,  seek  glory, 
honour,  and  immortality,  eternal  life;  but  to  those  who  are 
contentious,  indignation  and  wrath."  Another  construction, 
adopted  by  Bengel,  Fritzsche,  and  others,  supposes  that  roTc 
fxhv  xafT  [)7iouov-fjV  ipyou  dya&ou  (scil.  outre)  are  to  be  taken 
together;  to  those  who  are  according  to  perseverance,  i.  e.  to 
those  who  persevere;  (comp.  a!  xard  adpxa=0[  aapxtxoi,  and  of 
xard  IJveu/xa=oI  TtveupiaTixoL)  The  following  clause,  do^av — 
^r^Touai,  is  then  in  apposition  with  the  preceding:  "To  those 
who  persevere  in  good  works,  seeking  glory,  honour,  and 
immortality,  he  will  render  eternal  life."     This  view  of  the 


ROMANS  11.  8.  77 

passage  is  recommended  bj  the  correspondence  thus  established 
between  the  toIc  ;"£v  x«<?'  vtiojjlovjv  of  ver.  7,  and  the  to'k;  de  i^ 
ipi&scai;  of  ver.  8.  It  is  opposed,  however,  by  the  following  con- 
siderations: 1.  The  interpretation  of  the  phrase  of  xad^  Otto- 
fiOUTju  epyoo  dfad^oi),  is  hardly  borne  out  by  a  reference  to  the 
phrases  ol  xara  adpxa  and  ol  xazd  IIvBUfjLa.  2.  The  second 
clause  of  ver.  7,  if  a  mere  amplification  of  the  first  clause, 
should  be  introduced  by  xal,  as  in  ver.  8 :  Tol(;  ok  i^  ipc&eiai;, 
xal  dmid^ouai.  Luther,  after  Oecumenius,  translates  thus: 
*'  Welcher  geben  wird  Preis  und  Ehre  und  unvergangliches 
Wesen  denen,  die  mit  Geduld  in  guten  Werken  trachten  nach 
dem  ewigen  Leben:"  "Who  will  give  glory,  honour,  and 
immortality  to  those,  who,  in  patient  continuance  in  well-doing, 
seek  eternal  life."  According  to  this  view,  the  accusatives 
do^au,  Tip7]v,  acpd^apaiav,  depend  upon  dTcodaxrec,  and  ^u)r]u 
aiibvtov  on  ^rjtooac.  But  this  the  position  of  the  words  will 
hardly  bear.  Luther's  fluent  and  forcible  version  is  eflfected  by 
an  entire  transposition  of  the  clauses.  The  construction  there- 
fore first  mentioned  is  on  the  whole  to  be  preferred.  In  the 
English  version  of  the  words  xad^  bnopovijv,  xard  is  rendered 
through.  So  also  Grotius,  De  Wette,  and  others.  See  1  Cor. 
xii.  8,  Eph.  iii.  3,  7.  Others  translate  it  by  the  Latin  preposi- 
tion secundilm,  according  to,  or  in  virtue  of.  '  Trropiou^j  is  ren- 
dered patience  by  the  Vulgate,  and  Luther ;  pattens  expectatio, 
by  Beza;  constancy,  or  patient  continuance,  in  our  version. 
In  illustration  of  the  combination  bnofiovrjv  epyoo  dj-ad-oo,  comp. 
bnopLovYj  TTj^  iXTTcdot;,  1  Thess.  i.  3.  The  sing,  ipyou  is  used 
collectively  for  ipycov,  as  in  Gal.  vi.  4,  1  Thess.  i.  3,  and  else- 
where. What  is  immediately 'afterwards  expressed  by  eternal 
life,  is  here  expressed  by  the  three  words,  glory,  honour,  and 
immortality.  The  manifested  excellence  or  splendour  of  the 
future  condition  of  the  saints  is  expressed  by  do^a;  the  honour 
due  such  excellence  by  ti/htj;  and  the  endless  nature  of  their 
blessedness  by  dfd^apaia. 

Verse  8.  To  those  who  are  of  contention,  that  is,  the  con- 
tentious. Comp.  ol  ix  m<7TSa)(;,  believers;  ol  ix  7rep:T0fjirj(;,  the 
circumcised;  ol  ix  dxpo^uaTtai;,  the  uncircumcised;  ol  ix  uofjioo, 
those  who  belong  to  the  law,  legalists.  Instead  of  the  ordinary 
derivation  of  ipcd^sia  from  ipa;,  Ruckert  traces  it  to  ipc&oi;,  a 


78  ROMANS  II.  8. 

hireling,  which  derivation  is  sustained  by  Tholuck,  "  Beitrage  zur 
Spracherklarung  des  Neuen  Testaments,"  p.  25,  and  Fritzsche, 
Excursus  to  his  Commentary  on  the  second  chapter  of  this 
Epistle,  and  is  now  generally  adopted.  The  signification  of  the 
word,  as  determined  by  its  etymology  and  its  classical  usage  is, 
work  for  hire,  selfishness,  ambition,  party  spirit,  malice.  In  the 
New  Testament  it  is  used  several  times  in  the  same  sense,  as  in 
Philip,  i.  16,  ol  fxhv  k^  iptd-Biaz,  some  of  rivalry,  or  malice;  the 
antithetical  expression  is  ol  oh  i^  ajdnrjz.  In  Philip,  ii.  3,  it  is 
connected  with  xsvodo^ia,  vain  glory.  In  James  iii.  14,  16,  it 
is  connected  with  l^r^loQ,  envy.  In  2  Cor.  xii.  20,  it  is  distin- 
guished from  epc(;.  These  passages  show  that  the  scriptural 
usage  of  the  word  agrees  with  the  classical.  Still  in  the  present 
case  it  seems  to  have  a  somewhat  wider  meaning.  It  is  not 
envy,  or  rivalry,  but  malicious  opposition  to  God  and  his 
requirements  that  is  here  expressed.  This  is  plain  from  the 
explanatory  clauses  that  follow.  The  disposition  expressed  by 
kfjc&eca  is  manifested  in  disobeying  the  truth,  and  obeying 
unrighteousness.  Bretschneider  therefore  explains  of  i^  ipt- 
^eca^  to  mean  qui  malitia  ducti  Deo,  i.  e.  rei  divince,  adversan- 
tur:  "Those  who  through  malice  oppose  themselves  to  God." 
The  same  interpretation  is  given  by  Reiche  and  De  Wette,  as 
well  as  by  the  older  commentators.  Who  obey  not  the  truth. 
^Anec&ea)  is  to  refuse  belief,  to  disbelieve,  as  well  as  to  disobey. 
This  clause  therefore  means,  who  refuse  assent  and  obedience 
to  the  truth.  ^Ak^d^eca  is  divine  truth ;  what  is  true  and  right 
as  to  faith  and  practice.  See  i.  18.  "  Saepe,"  says  Bengel,  "  haec 
duo  {akrj&sca  and  ddcxia)  inter  se  opponuntur :  Veritas  continet 
justitiam,  et  injustitia  connotat  mendacium."  Who  yield  them- 
selves to,  or  follow  unrighteousness,  indignation  and  wrath, 
(shall  be  rendered.)  The  words  ^ofjib(;  xac  dppj  should  regularly 
be  in  the  accusative,  as  depending  on  d7:oda>aee  of  ver.  6 ;  but 
as  they  are  in  the  nominative,  iaToj  or  dnodajatzac  must  be 
supplied.  There  may  be,  as  some  suppose,  force  in  the  change 
of  construction  and  omission  of  the  verb.  God  gives  eternal 
life;  indignation  and  wrath  come  as  earned  by  man,  so  to 
speak,  Deo  nolente.  God  wills  all  men  to  be  saved.  Comp. 
Rom.  vi.  23.  Both  words  are  used  for  the  sake  of  intensity. 
As  to  their  specific  difference,  both  ancient  and  modern  philo- 


ROMANS  II.  9.  79 

legists  differ.  The  majority  make  ??y/^6c  express  the  momentary 
impulse  of  anger,  dpyrj  the  permanent  feeling.  Others  make 
opyrj  to  include  the  desire  of  vengeance,  and  therein  to  differ 
from  d^ofioQ.  The  former  distinction  is  more  in  accordance  with 
the  primary  meaning  of  the  words;  as  d^ufxoQ  means  the  mind 
as  the  seat  of  the  emotions,  and  hence  is  used  for  any  strong 
passion,  and  opyr]  means  disposition,  habit  of  mind. 

Verse  9.  Tribulation  and  anguish;  d^Xiipcz-,  (from  d^Xi^to^  to 
press,)  means  -pressure^  affliction;  ortvoycop'ta^  straitness  of 
place,  anguish.  They  are  often  associated ;  see  chap.  viii.  35, 
2  Cor.  vi.  4.  The  latter  is  the  stronger  of  the  two  terms,  as 
may  be  inferred  from  its  always  following  the  other,  and  espe- 
cially from  2  Cor.  iv.  8,  -d^Xc^ofxtvoc,  ^aXX  ob  azsvo-^copooiJizvoc, 
troubled,  hut  not  distressed.  Every  soul  of  man,  that  is,  every 
man.  Comp.  Acts  ii.  41,  Rom.  xiii.  1,  and  the  Hebrew  cD;"*b3 
ai».  RUckert,  Meyer,  and  others,  give  <pi>'/rj  its  full  force, 
upon  every  soul  that  belongs  to  a  man,  to  express  the  idea,  that 
the  soul  and  not  the  body  is  to  suffer  the  penalty.  But  in 
xiii.  1,  ^y/>y  evidently  stands  for  the  whole  person :  '  let  every 
soul,'  means  let  every  person;  and  such  is  a  common  scriptural 
meaning  of  the  word,  "if  a  soul  sin,"  "if  a  soul  lie,"  "if  the 
priest  buy  a  soul  with  his  money,"  &c.  Of  the  Jew  first,  and 
also  of  the  Greek.  It  becomes  now  apparent  that  the  apostle, 
in  laying  down  these  general  principles  of  justice,  had  the  Jews 
specially  in  view.  God,  he  says,  will  render  to  every  man 
according  to  his  works ;  to  the  good,  eternal  life ;  to  the  evil, 
tribulation  and  anguish.  And  lest  the  every  man  should  fail  to 
arrest  attention,  he  adds  expressly,  that  the  Jew  as  well  as  the 
Greek  is  to  be  thus  judged.  The  word  Trptozov  may  express 
either  order  or  preeminence.  If  the  former,  the  sense  is  what 
is  expressed  by  Calvin,  "  Haec  universalis  est  divini  judicii  lex, 
quae  a  Judseis  incipiet,  et  comprehendet  totum  orbem."  The 
judgment  shall  begin  with  the  Jews,  and  extend  to  the  Gen- 
tiles. If  the  latter,  the  sense  is,  The  Jew  shall  not  only  be 
punished  as  certainly  as  others,  but  more  severely,  because  he 
has  been  more  highly  favoured.  "The  Jew  first,"  is  equivalent 
then  to  the  Jew  especially.  The  same  remark  applies  to 
the  following  verse.  If  the  Jew  is  faithful,  he  shall  be  spe- 
cially rewarded.     What  is  true  of  all  men,  is  specially  true 


80  ROMANS  II.  10—12. 

of  those  to  whom  God  has  revealed  himself  in  a  peculiar 
manner. 

Verse  10.  But  glory,  honour,  and  peace,  to  every  one  doing 
good;  to  the  Jew  first,  and  also  to  the  G-reek.  This  verse  com- 
pletes the  statement  of  the  principle  of  law  announced  in  ver.  6. 
The  law,  while  it  threatens  death  to  the  transgressor,  promises 
life  to  the  obedient ;  and  it  matters  not  in  either  case,  whether 
it  is  a  Jew  or  Gentile  who  receives  its  award.  Glory,  honour, 
and  peace  are  descriptive  terms  for  eternal  life.  It  is  a  life 
glorious  in  itself,  an  object  of  reverence  or  regard  to  others, 
and  a  source  of  unspeakable  blessedness  or  peace. 

Vekse  11.  For  there  is  no  respect  of  persons  with  Grod.  He 
is  righteous  and  impartial,  looking  not  at  the  person,  but  the 
conduct  of  those  whom  he  judges.  This  is  the  ground  of  the 
assurance  that  he  will  judge  Jews  and  Gentiles  according  to 
their  works.  The  words  7ipoaa)7:oXrj(pia,  TtpoaoiTzoX-qTzr-qz,  zpoa- 
wTtoXrjTiTea),  are  all  peculiar  to  the  New  Testament,  and  all  owe 
their  origin  to  the  phrase  npoacoTzov  Xa/u^dveiu,  which  is  used  in 
the  sense  of  the  Hebrew  phrase,  ti'ias  J*to,  to  lift  up,  or  accept 
the  face  of  any  one,  that  is,  to  be  favourable  to  him.  This  is 
sometimes  used  in  a  good  sense,  as  Gen.  xxxii.  21,  "Peradven- 
ture  he  will  accept  of  me,"  literally,  lift  up  my  face.  Gen. 
xix.  21,  Job  xlii.  8.  Most  frequently  in  a  bad  sense,  for  par- 
tiality. Hence  judges  are  forbidden  to  accept  the  face  of  any 
one.  Lev.  xix.  15,  Deut.  x.  17.  In  the  New  Testament,  all  the 
expressions  above  mentioned  are  used  in  the  sense  of  unjust 
partiality.  All  TrpoccoKoXfjcpia,  respect  of  persons,  is  denied 
to  God,  and  forbidden  to  men.  See  Eph.  vi.  9,  Col.  iii.  25, 
James  ii.  1. 

Verse  12.  In  the  preceding  verse  it  was  stated  that  God  is 
just  and  impartial  in  all  his  judgments.  This  is  confirmed  not 
only  by  the  previous  assertion,  that  he  will  judge  every  man 
according  to  his  works,  but  also  by  the  exhibition  of  the  impor- 
tant principle  contained  in  this  verse.  Men  are  to  be  judged 
by  the  light  they  have  severally  enjoyed.  The  ground  of  judg- 
ment is  their  works ;  the  rule  of  judgment  is  their  knowledge. 
For  as  many  as  sinned  without  law.  That  is,  God  is  impartial, 
for  he  will  judge  men  according  to  the  light  which  they  have 
enjoyed.     Our  Lord  teaches  the  same  doctrine  when  he  says, 


ROMANS  II.  13.  81 

"  The  servant  which  knew  his  lord's  will,  .  .  .  shall  be  beaten 
with  many  stripes ;  but  he  that  knew  not,  and  did  commit  things 
worthy  of  stripes,  shall  be  beaten  with  few  stripes."  Luke 
xii.  47,  48.  By  law,  is  here  meant  a  written  or  supernaturally 
revealed  law.  In  1  Cor.  ix.  21,  the  heathen  are  called  dvofioc, 
without  law,  as  distinguished  from  the  Jews,  who  were  unb 
vofiov,  under  law.  No/jio^,  as  used  by  the  apostle,  means  the 
rule  of  duty,  the  will  of  God  revealed  for  our  obedience ;  com- 
monly, however,  with  special  reference  to  the  revelation  made 
in  the  Scriptures.  ^Auofiuj^  is  equivalent  to  "/^ajpl^  v6[j.ou,  with- 
out laiv,  and  is  not  to  be  taken  in  its  moral  sense,  without 
restraint,  i.  e.  recklessly.  ^Avo/iax;  xac  dTzoXobvToe,  shall  also 
ferish  ivithout  law,  that  is,  their  punishment  shall  be  assigned 
without  reference  to  the  written  law.  Kal  before  dnoXobvzm, 
says  Riickert  and  Tholuck,  indicates  the  relation  between  the 
cause  and  effect,  or  premise  and  conclusion ;  or  as  Fritzsche 
says,  "  necessitatem  indicat,  qu4  to  duofxco^  dTZoUoa&ae  ex  ruj 
d.v6[j.(D(:  d/jtaprduecv  consequatur."  Neither  of  these  explana- 
tions seems  to  express  the  true  force  of  the  particle ;  it  rather 
serves  to  indicate  that  as  the  sinning  is  dvofjioj^,  so  also  is  the 
punishment.  'AttoXXu/ju  is  to  destroy,  to  put  to  death,  spoken 
of  physical  death,  and  also  of  eternal  death.  Matt.  x.  28,  Luke 
iv.  34;  and  in  the  passive  form,  Luke  xiii.  3,  5,  John  iii.  15,  16, 
1  Cor.  viii.  11.  The  word  is  strong  in  its  own  import ;  and  as 
explained  by  other  passages,  it  here  teaches  that  those  who  sin 
without  a  written  revelation — although  they  are  to  be  judged 
fairly,  and  are  to  be  treated  far  less  severely  than  those  who 
have  enjoyed  the  light  of  revelation — are  still  to  perish. 
"Vide  igitur,  quale  patrocinium  suscipiant,  qui  praeposter^ 
misericordi^  gentes  evangelii  lumine  privatas  ignorantiae  prae- 
textu  Dei  judicio  eximere  tentant."    Oalvin. 

Verse  13.  For  not  the  hearers  of  the  law.  This  verse  is 
connected  with  the  last  clause  of  the  preceding,  and  assigns  the 
reason  why  the  Jews  shall  be  judged  or  punished  according  to 
the  law ;  the  mere  possession  or  knowledge  of  the  law  would 
not  avail,  for  it  is  not  the  hearers,  but  the  doers  of  the  law 
that  are  just  before  God.  The  expression  hearers  instead  of 
readers,  is  explained  by  the  fact  that  the  law  was  read  in  the 
presence  of  the  people,  and  by  hearing  rather  than  by  reading, 
6 


82  ROMANS  11.  14. 

their  knowledge  of  it  was  obtained.  Comp.  Matt.  v.  21,  John 
xii.  34,  Gal.  iv.  21,  James  i.  22.  To  he  just  before  Crod,  and 
to  be  justified,  are  the  same  thing.  They  are  both  forensic 
—  expressions,  and  indicate  the  state  rather  than  the  character  of 
those  to  whom  they  refer.  Those  are  just  in  the  sight  of  God, 
or  are  justified,  who  have  done  what  the  law  requires,  and  are 
regarded  and  treated  accordingly ;  that  is,  are  declared  to  be 
^V  free  from^ condemnation,  and  entitled  to  the  favour  of  God.  In 
obvious  allusion  to  the  opinion,  that  being  a  Jew  was  enough  to 
secure  admission  to  heaven,  the  apostle  says,  It  is  not  the 
hearers  but  the  doers  of  the  Imv  that  are  justified.  He  is  not 
-  speaking  of  the  method  of  justification  available  for  sinners,  as 
revealed  in  the  gospel,  but  of  the  principles  of  justice  which 
will  be  applied  to  all  who  look  to  the  law  for  justification.  If 
men  rely  on  works,  they  must  have  works ;  they  must  be  doers 
of  the  law;  they  must  satisfy  its  demands,  if  they  are  to  be 
justified  by  it.  For  God  is  just  and  impartial ;  he  will,  as  a 
judge  administering  the  law,  judge  every  man,  not  according  to 
his  privileges,  but  according  to  his  works  and  the  knowledge  of 
duty  which  he  has  possessed.  On  these  principles,  it  is  his 
very  design  to  show  that  no  flesh  living  can  be  justified. 

Verse  14.  For  whenever  the  Crentiles,  not  having  the  law. 
In  the  preceding  verse  the  apostle  had  said,  That  not  the  hear- 
ers but  the  doers  of  the  law  are  justified  before  God ;  and  then 
adds.  For  whenever  the  Gentiles,  not  having  the  law,  do  by 
nature  the  things  of  the  law,  they  are  a  law  unto  themselves. 
But  the  fact  that  the  Gentiles  are  a  law  unto  themselves,  has 
nothing  to  do,  either  as  an  illustration  or  confirmation,  with  the 
general  proposition  contained  in  ver.  13.  Those  who  insist  on 
establishing  such  a  connection,  suppose  that  ver.  14  refers  to 
the  last  clause  of  ver.  13,  and  is  designed  to  prove  either  that 
with  regard  to  the  Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews,  doing  is  the  thing 
required ;  or  that  there  are  doers  of  the  law  who  may  be  justi- 
fied, among  the  heathen,  'The  doers  of  the  law,'  says  the 
«•  apostle,  '  shall  be  justified ;  but  the  heathen  do  the  law,  there- 
•  fore  they  shall  be  justified.'  This,  however,  is  not  the  con- 
clusion at  which  the  apostle  is  aiming.  He  is  not  teaching  the 
method  of  justification,  or  arguing  to  prove  that  the  Gentiles  as 
well  as  the  Jews  may  be  doers  of  the  law,  and  thus  be  justified 


ROMANS  II.  14.  83 

in  the  sight  of  God.  He  is  expounding  the  law ;  he  is  showing 
the  principles  by  which  God  will  judge  the  world,  Gentiles  as 
well  as  Jews.  Those  who  are  without  the  written  law,  he  will 
judge  without  any  reference  to  that  law;  and  those  who  are 
under  the  law,  he  will  judge  by  that  law.  This  general  pro- 
position he  confirms  first  by  saying,  in  ver.  13,  that  the  mere 
possession  of  the  law  is  not  enough ;  and  secondly  by  saying, 
in  ver.  14,  that  the  Gentiles  have  a  law  by  which  they  may  be 
judged.  The  logical  connection  of  ver.  14,  therefore,  is  not 
with  ver.  13,  but  with  ver.  12.  Thus  Calvin,  who  says,  "Pro- 
bationem  prioris  membri  (ver.  12)  nunc  repetit.  Probat  enim 
frustra  obtendi  a  gentibus  ignorantiam,  quum  factis  suis  de- 
clarent,  nonnullam  se  habere  justitiae  regulam.  Nulla  enim 
gens  unquam  sic  ab  humanitate  abhorruit,  ut  non  se  intra  leges 
aliquas  contineret."  W7ien,  whenever,  as  often  as,  which  may 
be  the  sense  of  the  particle  in  this  case,  '  Whenever,  or  as  often 
as  the  heathen  do  so  or  so.'  Or  it  may  have  the  sense  of  while, 
because:  'Because,  or  since  the  heathen  do  so  or  so.'  Comp. 
1  Cor.  XV.  27.  As  i&u7^  is  without  the  article,  many  would 
render  it  heathen,  that  is,  some  heathen.  But  in  the  first  place, 
it  is  evident  from  the  context  that  this  is  not  what  the  apostle 
means  to  say.  His  object  is  to  show  that  the  heathen  would 
have  a  rule  of  duty  written  on  their  hearts;  a  fact  which  is  not 
proved  by  some  heathen  obeying  the  law,  but  which  is  proved 
by  the  moral  conduct  of  all  men.  Men  generally,  not  some 
men,  but  all  men,  show  by  their  acts  that  they  have  a  know- 
ledge of  right  and  wrong.  And  secondly,  this  word  has,  with- 
out the  article,  in  virtue  of  its  frequent  occurrence,  a  definite 
sense.  Comp.  iii.  9,  ix.  24,  and  especially  ver.  30 :  i&vy]  .  .  . 
y.arsXa^e  duatoabv^v;  the  heathen  attained  righteousness.  Do 
by  nature  the  things  of  the  laiv.  There  are  two  misinterpreta- 
tions of  the  phrase,  ta  rou  vopioo  Tzoiecu.  The  one  is,  that  it 
means  to  fulfil  the  law;  the  other,  to  do  the  ofiice  of  the  law, 
i.  e.  to  command  and  forbid.  The  former  is  unnecessary,  and 
is  in  direct  opposition  to  the  express  and  repeated  declaration 
of  the  apostle,  that  none,  whether,  Jew  or  Gentile,  has  ever 
fulfilled  the  law.  To  do  the  things  of  the  law,  is  indeed  to  do 
what  the  law  prescribes,  (comp.  x.  5,  Gal.  iii.  12 ;)  but  whether 
complete  or  partial  obedience  is  intended,  depends  upon  the 


84  ROMANS  11.  14. 

context.  The  man  who  pays  his  debts,  honours  his  parents,  is 
kind  to  the  poor,  does  the  things  of  the  law;  for  these  are 
things  which  the  law  prescribes.  And  this  is  all  the  argument 
the  apostle  requires,  or  his  known  doctrine  allows  us  to  under- 
stand by  the  phrase,  in  the  present  instance.  This  being  the 
case,  there  is  no  need  of  resorting  to  the  second  interpreta- 
tion mentioned  above,  which  was  proposed  by  Beza,  and  adopted 
by  Wetstein,  Flatt,  and  others.  Though  Trocelv  td  rou  po/iou 
might  mean  to  do  what  the  law  does,  prescribe  what  is  good  and 
forbid  what  is  evil,  it  certainly  has  not  that  sense  elsewhere  in 
Paul's  writings,  see  x.  5,  Gal.  iii.  12;  and  is  especially  out  of 
place  here,  in  immediate  connection  with  the  phrase  nocyjral  rou 
vofiou,  in  the  sense  of  doers  of  the  law.  The  heathen  do  <puaei, 
hy  nature,  the  things  of  the  law.  The  (puocc;  of  anything  is  the 
peculiarity  of  its  being,  that  in  virtue  of  which  it  is  what  it  is ; 
it  is  that  which  belongs  to  its  original  constitution,  and  is 
opposed  to  what  is  taught,  acquired,  or  made.  The  word  is 
sometimes  used  for  a  disposition  or  sentiment  arising  out  of  our 
nature,  as  opposed  to  mere  arbitrary  rules,  as  in  1  Cor.  xi.  14. 
In  the  present  case,  the  opposition  is  to  vofxoi;.  It  is  hy  nature, 
not  by  an  external  law,  that  the  Gentiles  are  led  to  perform 
moral  acts.  Comp.  Gal.  iv.  8,  Eph.  ii.  3.  The  proper  connec- 
tion of  (puaet  with  td  rod  vofiou  Ttocrj,  they  do  hy  nature  the  things 
of  the  law,  is  retained  in  our  version,  and  by  the  great  majority 
of  commentators.  Bengel,  Riickert,  and  a  few  others,  connect 
it  with  firj  vofjtou  lyovra,  not  having  the  law  hy  nature;  but  this 
is  saying  very  little  to  the  purpose  of  the  apostle.  His  object 
is  to  show  that  (puatc,  supplies  to  the  Gentiles  the  place  of  v6fio<;. 
These  not  having  the  law,  are  a  law  unto  themselves.  No/iou, 
without  the  article,  may  be  rendered  either,  a  law,  "not  having 
a  law,"  by  implication,  a  written,  external  law;  or  the  law, 
i.  e.  the  Jewish  law,  since  that  word  is  often  used  without  the 
article  for  the  law  of  the  Jews ;  that  is,  the  law  of  God,  as 
revealed  in  the  Scriptures.  The  Gentiles,  then,  are  law  unto 
themselves ;  they  have  in  their  own  nature  a  rule  of  duty ;  a 
knowledge  of  what  is  right,  and  a  sense  of  obligation.  As 
the  absence  of  all  moral  acts  among  the  lower  animals  shows 
that  they  have  no  sense  of  right  and  wrong,  that  they  are 
not  under  a  moral  law,  so  the  performance  of  such  acts  by 


ROMANS  II.  15.  85 

the  Gentiles,    shows   that   they  have  a  law  written  on  their 
hearts. 

Verse  15.  Who  show  the  work  of  the  law  written  on  their 
hearts.  Here,  as  in  i.  25,  and  often  elsewhere,  the  relative  has 
a  causal  force :  '  They  are  a  law  unto  themselves,  because  they 
show  the  work  of  the  law,'  &c.  Wolf,  Tholuck,  and  others 
make  epyou  too  vofiou  a  periphrase  for  the  law  itself;  Grotius, 
the  effect  of  the  law,  that  is,  a  knowledge  of  right  and  wrong; 
most  modern  commentators  make  zb  epyov  equivalent  to  ra 
ifjfa.  The  same  works  which  the  Jews  have  prescribed  in  their 
law,  the  Gentiles  show  to  be  written  on  their  hearts.  It  is  by 
doing  the  things  of  the  law,  that  the  Gentiles  show  they  have 
this  inward  rule  of  duty ;  their  conscience  also  bearing  witness. 
Grotius,  Koppe,  and  Tholuck,  take  aunnapzupeiv  in  the  sense 
of  the  simple  verb.  Comp.  Jer.  xi.  7,  in  the  LXX.,  Rom.  ix.  1, 
viii.  16.  'Their  conscience  bearing  witness,'  that  is,  to  the  fact 
that  there  is  a  law  written  on  their  hearts.  But  as  aoiifiapru- 
peiv  is  properly  una  testari,  and  as  the  context  presents  no 
reason  for  departing  from  the  common  meaning  of  the  word, 
the  great  majority  of  commentators  give  the  ffuv  its  proper 
force.  That  with  which  conscience  joins  its  testimony  is  the 
honcstas  vitce,  the  moral  acts  of  the  heathen ;  and  the  fact  to 
which  this  joint  testimony  is  borne,  is  that  they  are  a  law  unto 
themselves.  The  apostle  appeals  not  only  to  their  external 
conduct,  but  to  the  inward  operations  of  their  moral  nature. 
lovzidr^acQ  is  the  eonscientia  consequens,  the  inward  judge, 
whose  acts  are  described  in  the  following  clause :  Their  thoughts 
alternately  accusing  or  even  excusing.  Our  version  takes  peza^u 
as  an  adverb,  and  makes  aXXijXiov  the  object  of  the  following 
participles,  'And  in  the  meanwhile,  their  thoughts  accusing,  or 
else  excusing  one  another.'  Kollner  defends  this  interpreta- 
tion, and  declares  that  /zsra^y,  between,  cannot  mean  vicissim. 
It  is  used,  he  asserts,  only  of  time,  between  two  portions  of 
time,  i.  e.  during;  or  of  space,  between  two  places,  persons,  or 
things.  It  is  not,  however,  so  much  the  signification  of  the 
word  fizia^u,  as  the  sense  of  the  phrase  /isza^h  dUijkcou,  that  is 
expressed  by  the  translation,  vicissim,  sive  alternante  sententid. 
'Between  one  another,'  implies  reciprocal  or  alternate  action; 
comp.  Matt,  xviii.  15.     The  order  of  the   words  is   obviously 


86  ROMANS  II.  16. 

opposed  to  the  separation  of  d?2r^}.wv  from  fietaio,  and  to 
making  the  former  the  object  of  the  following  participles; 
which  are  rather  to  be  taken  absolutely.  Their  thoughts  alter- 
nately accusing  and  excusing,  viz.  their  conduct.  The  inward 
monitor  acquits  or  condemns,  as  the  case  demands.  Bengel 
remarks  on  the  yj  xac,  or  even,  that  xat  is  concessive,  and  shows 
"  cogitationes  longe  plus  habere  quod  accusent,  qu^m  quod 
defendant." 

Verse  16.  The  greatest  difficulty  in  relation  to  this  verse  is 
to  determine  its  connection  with  the  preceding  context.  In  the 
common  copies  of  our  Bible,  vs.  13,  14,  15,  are  marked  as  a 
parenthesis,  and  ver.  16  is  placed  in  connection  with  ver.  12 : 
'  The  heathen  shall  be  judged  without  the  law,  and  the  Jews  by 
the  law,  in  the  day  when  God  shall  judge  the  secrets  of  men.' 
Thus  the  passage  is  arranged  by  Griesbach  and  Knapp ;  a  mode 
of  connection  adopted  also  by  Beza,  Grotius,  Reiche,  and  others. 
The  objections  to  this  explanation  are,  first,  the  distance  at 
which  this  verse  stands  from  ver.  12;  and  secondly,  that  the 
intervening  verses  have  not  the  nature  of  a  parenthesis,  but  are 
intimately  connected  with  the  idea  contained  in  ver.  12.  Calvin, 
Bengel,  Ruckert,  Fritzsche,  De  Wette,  Meyer,  Tholuck,  &c., 
/Connect  this  verse  with  ver.  15.  The  difficulty  then  is,  that  the 
ff  verb  and  participles  of  ver.  15  are  in  the  present  tense,  whereas 
1  xpivel  of  this  verse  is  future :  '  Their  thoughts  accusing  or  ex- 
cusing in  the  day  when  God  shall  judge  the  secrets  of  men.' 
To  meet  this  difficulty,  Calvin  proposes  to  give  iu  ^[Ji-spa  the 
force  of  £rc  'hy^^P^''-^i  ^^  '^^  sense  of  until,  or  in  reference  to  the 
day.  Tholuck  modifies  this  by  making  h  include  si'c,  '  until 
and  on  that  day.'  Not  only  does  conscience  now  exercise  its 
office,  but  will  do  so  especially  on  the  day  of  judgment.  Riick- 
ert,  De  Wette,  and  others,  suppose  that  the  apostle  thought 
only  of  the  present  when  he  wrote  kvddxvuvrai,  but  extends  the 
reference  to  the  future,  in  the  latter  part  of  the  verse.  That 
is,  the  present  participles  express  what  will  be  present  on  the 
day  of  judgment:  'The  heathen  show  the  work  of  the  law 
written  on  their  hearts,  and  their  conscience  also  bearing  wit- 
ness,' &c.,  on  the  day  of  judgment.  But  the  main  objection  to 
this  connection  is,  that  the  sense  thus  expressed  is  not  suited  to 
the  apostle's  object.     He  designs  to  prove  that  the  Gentiles  are 


ROMANS  11.  16.  87 

a  law  to  themselves.  This  is  proved  by  the  present  operation 
of  conscience,  which  approves  or  condemns  their  conduct.  But 
it  seems  forced  to  bring  that  proof  from  what  conscience  will 
do  on  the  day  of  judgment.  It  seems  best  therefore  to  refer 
this  verse  back  to  ver.  12.  God,  it  is  said,  will  judge  the  secrets 
of  men;  the  things  which  have  escaped  the  knowledge  of  others ; 
those  hidden  deeds  of  the  heart  and  life,  which  are  the  surest 
criterion  of  character.  The  searching  character  of  this  judg- 
ment ;  its  justice,  as  not  guided  by  mere  external  appearance ; 
and  its  contrast  with  mere  human  judgments,  are  all  intimated 
by  this  expression.  The  clause,  according  to  my  gospel,  is  not 
to  be  connected  with  xpcpel,  as  though  the  gospel  was  to  be  the 
rule  of  this  divine  judgment;  for  this  would  contradict  the 
apostle's  doctrine,  that  men  are  to  be  judged  by  the  light  they 
possess.  It  refers  to  the  fact  of  a  final  judgment,  which  is 
declared  to  be  in  accordance  with  the  gospel,  or  a  part  of  that 
message  which  Paul  was  commissioned  to  deliver.  By  Jesus 
Christ  is  to  be  connected  with  xpcvel.  God  will  judge  the  world 
through  Jesus  Christ,  agreeably  to  our  Saviour's  own  declara- 
tion, "  The  Father  judgeth  no  man,  but  has  committed  all  judg- 
ment to  the  Son."  Sometimes  this  judgment  is  referred  directly 
to  the  Messiah,  as  in  1  Cor.  iv.  5,  2  Cor.  v.  10,  2  Tim.  iv.  1 ; 
sometimes  indirectly,  as  though  he  were  but  the  representative 
of  God,  as  in  Acts  xv.ii.  31.  These  representations,  however, 
are  perfectly  consistent.  The  preposition  dcd  in  such  cases  only 
expresses  the  idea  that  the  power  or  authority  which  belongs  to 
the  Godhead  is  specially  exercised  through  the  Son.  Thus 
sometimes  it  is  said,  God  created  all  things  through  the  Son, 
Heb.  i.  2,  and  sometimes  that  the  Son  himself  is  the  Creator, 
Col.  i.  16. 

Such  then  are  the  principles  on  which  Paul  assures  us  that 
all  men  are  to  be  judged.  They  commend  themselves  irresisti- 
bly to  every  man's  conscience  as  soon  as  they  are  announced, 
and  yet  every  false  hope  of  heaven  is  founded  on  their  denial 
or  neglect.  It  may  be  proper  to  repeat  them,  that  it  may  be 
seen  how  obviously  the  hopes  of  the  Jews,  to  which  Paul,  from 
ver.  17  onward,  applies  them,  are  at  variance  with  these  moral 
axioms.  1.  He  who  condemns  in  others  what  he  does  himself, 
ipso  facto  condemns  himself.    2.  God's  judgments  are  according 


88  ROMANS  II.  1—16. 

to  the  real  character  of  men.  3.  The  goodness  "of  God,  being 
designed  to  lead  us  to  repentance,  is  no  proof  that  he  will  not 
punish  sin.  The  perversion  of  that  goodness  will  increase  our 
guilt,  and  aggravate  our  condemnation.  4.  God  will  judge 
every  man  according  to  his  works,  not  according  to  his  pro- 
fessions, his  ecclesiastical  connections  or  relations.  5.  Men 
shall  be  judged  by  the  knowledge  of  duty  which  they  severally 
possess.  God  is  therefore  perfectly  impartial.  These  are  the 
principles  on  which  men  are  to  be  tried,  in  the  last  day,  by 
Jesus  Christ ;  and  those  who  expect  to  be  dealt  with  on  any 
other  plan,  will  be  dreadfully  disappointed. 


DOCTRINE.  , 

1.  The  leading  doctrine  of  this  section  is,  that  God  is  just. 
His  judgments  are  infinitely  removed  above  all  those  disturbing 
causes  of  ignorance  and  partiality,  by  which  the  decisions  of 
men  are  perverted,  vs.  1,  16. 

2.  The  refuge  which  men  are  always  disposed  to  seek  in  their 
supposed  advantages  of  ecclesiastical  connection,  as  belonging 
to  the  true  Chui-ch,  &c.,  is  a  vain  refuge.  God  deals  with  men 
according  to  their  real  character,  vs.  2,  3. 

3.  The  goodness  of  God  has  both  the  design  and  tendency 
to  lead  men  to  repentance.  If  it  fails,  the  fault  must  be  their 
own,  ver.  4. 

4.  It  is  a  great  abuse  of  the  divine  goodness  and  forbearance 
to  derive  encouragement  from  them  to  continue  in  sin.  Such 
conduct  will  certainly  aggravate  our  condemnation,  vs.  3 — 5. 

5.  None  but  the  truly  good,  no  matter  what  the  professions, 
connections  or  expectations  of  others  may  be,  will  be  saved; 
and  none  but  the  truly  wicked,  whether  Gentile  or  Jew,  Chris- 
tian or  heathen,  will  be  lost,  vs.  6 — 10. 

6.  The  goodness  which  the  Scriptures  approve  consists,  in  a 
great  degree,  in  the  pursuit  of  heavenly  things:  it  is  a  seeking 
after  glory,  honour  and  immortality,  by  a  persevering  continu- 
ance in  well-doing.  It  is  the  pursuit  of  the  true  end  of  our 
being,  by  the  proper  means,  ver.  7. 

T.  The  responsibility  of  men  being  very  different  in  this 
world,  their  rewards  and  punishment  will,  in  all  probability,  be 


ROMANS  II.  1—16.  89 

very  different  in  the  next.  Those  who  knew  not  their  Lord's 
will,  shall  be  beaten  with  few  stripes.  And  those  who  are 
faithful  in  the  use  of  ten  talents,  shall  be  made  rulers  over  ten 
cities,  vs.  9,  10. 

v8.  The  heathen  are  not  to  be  judged  by  a  revelation  of  which 
they  never  heard.  But  as  they  enjoy  a  revelation  of  the  divine 
character  in  the  works  of  creation,  chap.  i.  19,  20,  and  of  the 
rule  of  duty  in  their  own  hearts,  vs.  14,  15,  they  are  inexcusa- 
ble. They  can  no  more  abide  the  test  by  which  they  are  to  be 
tried,  than  we  can  stand  the  application  of  the  severer  rule 
by  which  we  are  to  be  judged.  Both  classes,  therefore,  need  a 
Saviour,  ver.  12. 

9,  The  moral  sense  is  an  original  part  of  our  constitution, 
and  not  the  result  of  education,  ver.  14. 

10.  Jesus  Christ,  who  is  to  sit  in  judgment  upon  the  secrets 
of  all  men,  must  be  possessed  of  infinite  knowledge,  and  there- 
fore be  divine,  ver.  16. 

REMARKS. 

1.  The  deceitfulness  of  the  human  heart  is  strikingly  exhi- 
bited in  the  different  judgments  which  men  pass  upon  them- 
selves and  others ;  condemning  in  others  what  they  excuse  in 
themselves.  And  it  not  unfrequently  happens  that  the  most 
censorious  are  the  most  criminal,  vs.  1,  3. 

2.  How  does  the  goodness  of  God  affect  us  ?  If  it  does  not 
lead  us  to  repentance,  it  will  harden  our  hearts  and  aggravate 
our  condemnation,  vs.  4,  5. 

3.  Genuine  repentance  is  produced  by  discoveries  of  God's 
mercy,  legal  repentance  by  fear  of  his  justice,  ver.  4. 

4.  Any  doctrine  which  tends  to  produce  security  in  sin,  must 
be  false.  The  proper  effect  of  the  enjoyment  of  peculiar  advan- 
tages is  to  increase  our  sense  of  responsibility,  and  our  grati- 
tude to  God,  and  not  to  make  us  suppose  that  we  are  his  special 
favourites.     God  is  no  respecter  of  persons,  vs.  3 — 10. 

5.  How  vain  the  hopes  of  future  blessedness,  indulged  by  the 
immoral,  founded  upon  the  expectation  either  that  God  will  not 
deal  with  them  according  to  their  works,  or  that  the  secrets  of 
their  hearts  will  not  be  discovered !  vs.  6 — 10,  16. 


90  ROMANS  II.  17—29. 

6.  If  God  is  a  just  God,  his  wrath  is  not  to  be  escaped  by 
evasions,  but  in  the  way  of  his  own  appointment.  If  we  have 
no  righteousness  of  our  own,  we  must  seek  that  of  the  Saviour, 
vs.  1—16. 

7.  He  who  died  for  the  sins  of  men  is  to  sit  in  judgment 
upon  sinners.  This  is  a  just  ground  of  fear  to  those  who  reject 
his  offered  mercy,  and  of  confidence  to  those  who  trust  in  his 
righteousness,  ver.  16. 


ROMANS  II.  17—29. 

ANALYSIS. 

This  section  consists  properly  of  two  parts.  The  first, 
vs.  17 — 24,  contains  an  application  of  the  principles  laid  down 
in  the  former  section,  to  the  case  of  the  Joavs.  The  second, 
vs.  25 — 29,  is  an  exhibition  of  the  nature  and  design  of  circum- 
cision. The  principal  grounds  of  dependence  on  the  part  of  the 
Jews  were,  1.  Their  covenant  relation  to  God.  2.  Their  supe- 
rior advantages  as  to  divine  knowledge.  3.  Their  circumcision. 
Now  if  it  is  true  that  God  will  judge  every  man,  Jew  or  Gentile, 
according  to  his  works,  and  by  the  law  which  he  has  enjoyed, 
what  will  it  avail  any  to  say,  We  are  Jews,  we  have  the  law, 
ver.  17 ;  we  have  superior  knowledge,  ver.  18 ;  we  can  act  as 
guides  and  instructers  to  others  ?  ver.  19.  This  may  all  be  very 
true;  but  are  you  less  a  thief,  merely  because  you  condemn 
stealing  ?  less  an  adulterer,  because  you  condemn  adultery  ?  or 
less  a  blasphemer,  because  you  abhor  sacrilege?  vs.  21,  22. 
This  superior  knowledge,  instead  of  extenuating,  only  aggra- 
vates your  guilt.  While  boasting  of  your  advantages,  you  by 
your  sins  bring  a  reproach  on  God,  vs.  23,  24.  According  to 
the  first  principles  of  justice,  therefore,  your  condemnation  will 
be  no  less  certain,  and  far  more  severe  than  that  of  the  Gentiles. 
As  to  circumcision,  to  which  the  Jews  attached  so  much  impor- 
tance, the  apostle  shows  that  it  could  avail  nothing,  except  on 
condition  of  obedience  to  the  law  or  covenant  to  which  it  be- 
longed, ver.  25.  If  the  law  be  broken,  circumcision  is  worth- 
less, ver.  25,  latter  clause.     On  the  other  hand,  if  the  law  is 


ROMANS  II.  17.  91 

obeyed,  the  want  of  circumcision  will  not  prevent  a  blessing, 
ver.  26.  More  than  this,  if  those  less  favourably  situated  than 
the  Jews  are  found  obedient,  they  will  rise  up  in  judgment 
against  the  disobedient,  though  favoured  people  of  God,  ver.  27. 
All  this  proves  that  an  external  rite  can,  in  itself,  have  no 
saving  power;  because  God  is  a  Spirit,  and  requires  and 
regards  spiritual  obedience  alone.  This  principle  is  stated, 
first  negatively,  he  is  not  a  Jew  who  is  such  in  profession 
merely,  ver.  28 ;  and  then  affirmatively,  he  is  a  Jew  who  is  one 
inwardly,  ver.  29. 


COMMENTARY. 

Vekse  17.  Instead  of  Ids,  behold,  which  is  in  the  common 
text,  most  of  the  ancient  manuscripts,  many  of  the  versions, 
and  of  the  Fathers,  read  ei  de,  but  if;  which  reading  is  adopted 
by  Bengel,  Griesbach,  Knapp,  and  Lachmann,  and  is  followed 
by  almost  all  the  recent  commentators.  We  have  then  the 
protasis  of  a  sentence  of  which  the  apodosis  does  not  follow : 
*  But  if  thou  art  called  a  Jew,  and  hast  the  law,  thou  shouldst 
act  according  to  it;'  comp.  2  Pet.  ii.  4.  Or  the  answering  clause 
may  be  found  in  ver.  21,  'If  thou  art  called  a  Jew,'  &c., 
'teachest  thou  then  {gup)  not  thyself?'  Winer,  §  64,  II.  1.  Art 
called,  kTzovofxd^Tj,  called  after,  or  in  addition  to;  a  sense 
insisted  on  here  by  Theodoret,  who  says,  "ol»x  tcTizv  dvo/udCrj, 
dU'  £7rouo/xd^7j.'"  Bengel,  Kollner,  Meyer,  and  others,  take  the 
same  view  of  the  meaning  of  the  word :  '  Besides  your  proper 
name,  you  call  yourself  a  Jew.'  But  as  the  compound  word  is 
used  for  the  simple  one  in  Gen.  iv.  17,  25,  26,  and  elsewhere, 
and  as  Jew  was  then  the  common  name  of  the  people,  it  is 
better  rendered,  thou  art  called.  ^ louddlo^,  a  Jew,  a  descendant 
of  Judah,  in  the  New  Testament  applied  to  all  the  Israelites,  as 
inhabitants  of  Judea.  It  was  considered  a  title  of  honour,  not 
only  on  account  of  its  etymology,  n^in%  meaning  praised,  Gen. 
xlix.  8,  but  because  it  designated  the  people  of  God.  Comp. 
vs.  28,  29,  and  Rev.  ii.  9 :  "I  know  the  blasphemy  of  those  who 
say  they  are  Jews,  and  are  not."  To  be  a  Jew  in  this  sense, 
was  to  be  one  of  the  covenant  people  of  God,  a  member  of  the 


92  ROMANS  II.  17. 

theocracy,  or  of  the  true  Church.     As  this  was  the  principal 
ground  of  the  false  confidence  of  the  Jews,  the  apostle  mentions 
it  before  all  others.     It  was  not  enough  that  they  were  the 
children  of  Abraham ;  if  they  sinned,  they  were  exposed  to  the 
displeasure  of  that  God  who  will  render  to  every  man  according 
to  his  works,  to  the  Jew  first,  and  also  to  the  Gentile.     And 
restest  on  the  law.     That  is.  Thou  placest  thy  confidence  upon 
the  law.     In  the  Septuagint,  the  word  occurs  in  Micah  iii.  11, 
a  passage  illustrative  of  the  one  before  us,  "  The  heads  thereof 
judge  for  reward,  and  the  priests  thereof  teach  for  hire,  the 
prophets  thereof  divine  for  money ;  yet  will  they  lean  upon  the 
Lord,  and  say,  Is  not  the  Lord  among  us  ?    none  evil  can  come 
upon  us."     The  law  here  means  the  whole  Mosaic  system,  the 
civil  and  religious  polity  of  the  Jews.     This  they  relied  upon ; 
the  fact  that  they  were  within  the  Church,  were  partakers  of 
its  sacraments  and  rites ;  that  they  had  a  divinely  appointed 
priesthood,  continued  in  unbroken  succession  from  Aaron,  and 
invested  with  the  power  to  make  atonement  for  sin,  was  the 
ground  on  which  they  rested  their  hope  of  acceptance  with  God. 
Within  that  pale  they  considered  all  safe ;  out  of  it,  there  was 
no  salvation.     Such  was  the  false  confidence  of  the  Jews ;  such 
has  been  and  is  the  false  confidence  of  thousands  of  Christians. 
And  maJcest  thy  boast  of  Crod.     See  Winer,   §  13.  2,  on  the 
form  of  the  word  xauyaaat.     To  boast,  or  glory  in  any  person 
or  thing,  is  to  rejoice  in  him  or  it  as  a  source  of  honour,  happi- 
ness, or  profit  to  ourselves.     We  are  forbidden  thus  to  glory  in 
ourselves,  or  any  creature,  as  the  ground  of  our  confidence  and 
source  of  our  blessedness.     "Let  no  man  glory  in  men;  but  he 
that  glories,  let  him  glory  in  the  Lord."     This  glorying  in  God 
may  be  right  or  wrong,  according  to  the  reasons  of  it.     If  it 
proceeds  from  a  sense  of  our  own  emptiness,  and  from  right 
apprehensions  of  the  excellence  of  God,  and  from  faith  in  his 
promises,  then  it  is  that  glorying  which  is  so  often  commanded. 
But  if  it  arises  from  false  notions  of  our  relation  to  him,  as  his 
peculiar   favourites,   then  it  is  vain    and  wicked.     The  Jews 
regarded  themselves  in  such  a  sense  the  people  of  God,  as  to  be 
secure  of  his  favour,   let  their  personal  character  be  what  it 
might.     They  boasted  that  he  was  their  God,  that  they  mono- 
polized his  fayour,  all  other  nations  being  his  enemies. 


ROMANS  II.  18.  93 

Verse  18.  And  knowest  the  will,  &c.,  of  God.  Superior 
knowledge  was  another  of  the  peculiar  distinctions  of  the  Jews. 
The  particulars  to  which  the  apostle  refers  in  this,  as  -vyell  as  in 
the  preceding  and  succeeding  verses,  constituted  real  and  great 
privileges,  by  which  the  Jews  were  distinguished  from  all  other 
people.  To  be  the  people  of  God,  to  have  the  law,  to  know  the 
divine  will,  were  indeed  great  advantages ;  but  these  advantages 
only  increased  the  obligations  of  those  who  enjoyed  them.  They 
did  not  of  themselves  constitute  any  ground  of  confidence  of 
acceptance  with  God;  much  less  did  the  mere  possession  of 
these  distinguishing  favours  give  exemption  from  those  princi- 
ples of  just  retribution,  according  to  which  God  will  judge  the 
world.  The  apostle,  however,  grants  the  Jews  all  they  claimed : 
he  grants  that  they  were  the  people  of  God ;  that  they  had  the 
law,  knew  the  divine  will,  &c.,  and  then  shows  that  they  were 
nevertheless  exposed'  to  condemnation.  If  real  advantages, 
such  as  distinguished  the  Jews  above  all  other  nations,  were  of 
no  avail  to  their  justification  or  acceptance  before  God,  what  is 
to  be  said  or  thought  of  those  who  place  their  confidence  in 
fictitious  advantages,  in  mere  imaginary  superiority  to  their 
fellow  men  or  fellow  Christians ;  as  belonging  to  the  true 
Church,  having  the  true  succession,  the  real  sacraments,  when 
in  fact  in  these  respects  they  are  even  less  favoured  than  those 
whom  they  look  upon  as  outside  the  Church  and  the  covenant? 
And  approvest  the  things  that  are  more  excellent.  Aoxtfid^scv 
is  to  try,  to  examine,  as  in  1  Cor.  iii.  13 ;  and  then,  to  regard 
as  tried,  i.  e.  to  approve,  as  in  1  Cor.  xvi.  3.  Ata(pepecv  means 
to  differ,  as  in  Gal.  ii.  6 ;  and  also,  to  excel,  as  in  Matt.  x.  31. 
See  also  Matt.  vi.  26,  Luke  xii.  7,  &c.  This  is  the  most  common 
meaning  of  the  word  in  the  New  Testament.  We  have  then  the 
choice  of  the  two  interpretations.  Thou  approvest  the  things  that 
are  more  excellent,  or,  Thou  dost  distinguish  the  things  that  are 
different.  Our  version  gives  the  former,  both  here  and  in 
Philip,  i.  10,  where  the  same  words  occur.  The  latter  is  adopted 
by  Theodoret,  who  explains  dca(pipovTa  by  iuauvca  dUijhii;, 
8aaco(T6vf]v  xal  ddcx'tav;  and  Theophylact,  ri  dd  Trpd^ac  xal  u  [irj 
del  Trpa^ai.  The  same  view  is  taken  by  most  of  the  recent  com- 
mentators. It  is  suitable  to  the  context,  inasmuch  as  the 
apostle  is  here  speaking  of  the  peculiar  advantages  of  the  Jews, 


m  ROMANS  11.  19,  20. 

one  of  which  was  their  superior  knowledge,  and  their  ability  to 
do  what  others  could  not,  that  is,  decide  what  was  and  what 
was  not .  consistent  with  the  will  of  God.  On  the  other  hand, 
however,  to  approve  of  what  is  right,  to  discern  it  to  be  right, 
is  a  higher  attainment  than  merely  to  discriminate  between 
good  and  evil.  And  as  the  apostle  is  here  conceding  to  the 
Jews  everything  they  could  claim,  it  is  better  to  give  his  words 
their  highest  sense.  He  admits  that  theoretically  they  were 
right  in  their  judgments.  It  was  not  their  moral  judgrftents, 
but  their  moral  conduct  that  was  in  fault.  Being  instructed, 
xaz7j')^o6/ji£vo(;,  (orally  instructed,  as  the  word  literally  means,) 
out  of  the  law,  i.  e.  the  Scriptures,  as  vo^oc  often  means.  The 
word  or  law  of  God  was  a  light  to  their  feet,  to  which  they 
could  at  all  times  refer  to  guide  their  steps. 

Verses  19,  20.  And  art  confident  that  thou  thyself  art  a 
guide  of  the  blind.  The  apostle  in  these  verses  states  the  effect 
which  the  peculiar  advantages  of  the  Jews  produced  upon  them. 
They  considered  themselves  to  be  greatly  superior  to  all  other 
nations ;  capable  of  instructing  them ;  and  of  being  the  guides 
and  light  of  the  world.  This  idea  is  presented  in  different 
lights,  in  what  follows — a  light  of  them  which  are  in  darkness, 
an  instructor  of  the  foolish,  a  teacher  of  babes.  They  looked 
upon  themselves  as  qualified  to  act  as  the  instructors  of  others, 
eyovra,  having^  i.  e.  because  they  had  the  form,  &c.  Having 
the  form  of  knowledge  and  of  truth  in  the  law.  Mopipcoacz 
occurs  in  the  New  Testament  only  here  and  in  2  Tim.  iii.  5. 
In  the  latter  passage  it  is  opposed  to  the  reality  {dovafxcq,)  and 
means  mere  appearance.  This  however  cannot  be  its  meaning 
here;  for  the  clause  in  which  it  occurs,  assigns  the  reason 
which  the  Jews  felt  themselves  to  have,  and  which  they  had  in 
fact,  for  their  superior  knowledge.  They  supposed  themselves 
to  be  able  to  guide  others,  because  they  had  the  form  of  know- 
ledge in  the  law.  It  therefore  here  means,  forma  quce  rem 
exprimat,  as  Grotius  expresses  it.  The  form  of  knowledge,  is 
knowledge  as  represented  or  expressed  in  the  law.  In  other 
words,  the  exhibition  of  knowledge  and  truth  in  the  law  is 
given  in  a  form  which  expresses  their  true  nature.  The  words 
yvioacQ  and  dh^d-tca  do  not  essentially  differ.  The  former,  says 
De  Wette,  is  truth  as  known ;  the  latter,  truth  in  itself. 


ROMANS  II.  21,  22.  95 

Verses  21,  22.  Thou  therefore  that  teachest  another.  We 
have  here  the  virtual  apodosis  of  ver.  17.  '  If  thou,  although  a 
Jew,  and  related  to  God  as  one  of  his  peculiar  people,  and  well 
instructed  out  of  the  law,  violate  the  law,  and  do  the  things  thou 
condemnest  in  others,  how  canst  thou  escape  the  judgment  of 
that  God  who  Avill  render  to  every  man  according  to  his  works  ?' 
It  is  evident  the  apostle  means  to  assert  that  the  Jews  were 
guilty  of  the  crimes  here  specified ;  and  it  matters  little  whether 
the  several  clauses  be  read  interrogatively  or  affirmatively. 
The  former,  as  the  more  forcible,  is  generally  preferred.  To 
set  ourselves  up  as  instructors,  and  yet  not  to  apply  our  prin- 
ciples to  ourselves,  is  not  only  an  inconsistency,  but  ofifensive 
arrogance  and  hypocrisy.  To  steal  and  to  commit  adultery 
are  great  sins,  but  for  those  who  preach  against  them  and  con- 
demn them  in  others,  to  commit  them,  is  to  quadruple  their 
guilt.  The  Jews,  therefore,  who  committed  the  sins  which  they 
so  loudly  condemned  in  the  heathen,  were  more  guilty  in  the 
sight  of  God  than  the  heathen  themselves.  While  flattering 
themselves  that  they  were  secure  from  the  divine  wrath,  in  the 
enclosure  of  the  theocracy,  they  were  the  special  objects  of 
God's  displeasure ;  so  that  publicans  and  harlots  were  nearer  to 
the  kingdom  of  God  than  they.  Thou  that  abhorrest  idols,  dost 
thou  roh  temples?  That  the  Jews,  subsequently  to  the  captivity, 
did  abhor  idols,  is  a  well  known  fact;  that  they  robbed  the 
temples  of  idols  is  not  known.  Besides,  robbing  the  temples 
of  idols  was  not  sacrilege ;  for  in  the  mind  of  the  Jew  there  was 
no  sacredness  in  those  temples.  It  was  to  him  robbery,  and 
nothing  more ;  probably  something  less.  The  objurgatory  cha- 
racter of  these  several  clauses  requires  that  the  thing  here 
charged  should  be  of  the  same  nature  with  idolatry,  not  its 
opposite.  The  Jew  taught  that  men  should  not  steal,  yet  he 
himself  stole ;  he  said.  Commit  not  adultery,  yet  he  was  guilty 
of  that  crime;  he  abhorred  idols,  yet  was  guilty  of  idolatry. 
It  is  something  analogous  to  idolatry  that  is  here  charged,  not 
the  despoiling  of  heathen  temples,  which  would  be  the  natural 
expression  of  the  abhorrence  of  idols.  The  essence  of  idol- 
atry was  profanation  of  God ;  of  this  the  Jews  were  in  a  high 
degree  guilty.  They  had  made  his  house  a  den  of  thieves. 
Instead  therefore  of  taking  the  word  hpoffohl^  literally,  which 


96  ROMANS  II.  23—25. 

the  context  forbids,  it  should  be  understood  in  a  secondary 
sense.  It  expresses  the  sin  of  irreverence  in  its  higher  forms ; 
either  as  manifested  in  withholding  from  God  his  due,  which 
the  prophet  denounces  as  robbery — "Will  a  man  rob  God?  yet 
ye  have  robbed  me.  But  ye  say,  Wherein  have  we  robbed 
thee?  In  tithes  and  offerings,"  Mai.  iii.  8 :  or  it  may  be  taken 
in  the  still  more  general  sense  of  profanation,  the  irreverent 
disregard  of  God  and  holy  things.  This  is  all  the  context 
requires :  '  You  profess  great  reverence  for  God,  in  eschewing 
idolatry ;  and  yet,  in  other  forms,  you  are  guilty  of  the  greatest 
irreverence.' 

Verses  23,  24.  Another  striking  instance  of  the  incon- 
sistency between  their  principles  and  their  conduct  was,  that 
while  they  made  a  boast  of  the  law,  they  so  disregarded  its 
precepts  as  to  lead  the  heathen  to  think  and  speak  evil  of  that 
God  who  gave  the  law,  of  whose  character  they  judged  by 
the  conduct  of  his  people.  This  charge  he  expresses  in  the 
language  of  their  own  prophets ;  see  Isa.  Iii.  5,  and  Ezek. 
xxxvi.  20,  23.  In  the  former  passage  we  find  in  the  LXX. 
nearly  the  same  words  as  those  used  by  the  apostle :  "  Si*  6fid(; 
dcanavrbz  to  ovoftd  /lou  ^Xaa<pi^fjLecTcu  kv  roTf  e&vsac."  Both 
Isaiah  and  Ezekiel,  indeed,  refer  to  that  blaspheming  of  God 
by  the  heathen,  which  arose  from  the  misery  of  his  people, 
whose  God  they  were  thus  led  to  regard  as  unable  to  protect 
his  worshippers.  This  however  does  not  render  the  reference 
of  the  apostle  less  appropriate;  for  it  is  the  mere  fact  that 
God's  name  was  blasphemed  among  the  Gentiles,  on  account 
of  the  Jews,  that  the  apostle  means  to  confirm  by  this  reference 
to  the  Scriptures.  And  besides,  as  their  sins  were  the  cause 
of  their  captivity,  their  sins  were  the  cause  also  of  the  evil 
speaking  of  God,  of  which  their  sufferings  were  the  immediate 
occasion. 

Verse  25.  The  apostle,  in  vs.  1 — 16  of  this  chapter,  had 
proved  that  God  would  judge  both  Jews  and  Gentiles  accord- 
ing to  their  works;  in  vs.  17 — 24,  that  the  Jews,  notwith- 
standing their  peculiar  privileges,  were  no  less  sinful  than 
the  Gentiles ;  the  obvious  conclusion  therefore  was,  that  they 
were  no  less  liable  to  condemnation.  It  is  with  this  conclusion 
implied,  but  not  expressed,  that  this  verse  is  connected  by  the 


ROMANS  II.  25.  ^ 

particle  ydp:  'You  are  exposed  to  condemnation,  for  circum- 
cision, in  which  you  trust,  profits  only  on  condition  that  you 
keep  the  law.'  Comp.  chap.  iv.  2,  and  iv.  9,  and  other  places  in 
which  ydp  refers  to  a  thought  omitted.  Circumcision  is  not 
here  to  be  taken  for  Judaism  in  general,  of  which  that  rite  was 
the  sign,  but  for  the  rite  itself.  It  is  obvious  that  the  Jews 
regarded  circumcision  as  in  some  way  securing  their  salvation. 
That  they  did  so  regard  it,  may  be  proved  not  only  from  such 
passages  of  the  New  Testament  where  the  sentiment  is  implied, 
but  also  by  the  direct  assertion  of  their  own  writers.  Such 
assertions  have  been  gathered  in  abundance  from  their  works 
by  Eisenmenger,  Schoettgen,  and  others.  For  example,  the 
Rabbi  Menachem,  in  his  Commentary  on  the  Books  of  Moses, 
fol.  43,  col.  3,  says,  "  Our  Rabbins  have  said,  that  no  circum- 
cised man  will  see  hell."  In  the  Jalkut  Rubeni,  num.  1,  it  is 
taught,  "  Circumcision  saves  from  hell."  In  the  Medrasch 
Tillim,  fol.  7,  col.  2,  it  is  said,  "  God  swore  to  Abraham,  that 
no  one  who  was  circumcised  should  be  sent  to  hell."  In  the 
book  Akedath  Jizehak,  fol.  54,  col.  2,  it  is  taught  that  "Abra- 
ham sits  before  the  gate  of  hell,  and  does  not  allow  that  any 
circumcised  Israelite  should  enter  there."*  The  apostle  con- 
siders circumcision  under  two  different  aspects.  First,  as  a  rite 
supposed  to  possess  some  inherent  virtue  or  merit  of  its  own ; 
and  secondly,  as  a  sign  and  seal  of  God's  covenant.  In  the 
former  view,  Paul  here  as  well  as  elsewhere,  says,  "  Circum- 
cision is  nothing,  and  uncircumcision  is  nothing,"  Gal.  vi.  15; 
in  the  latter,  it  had  its  value.  As  a  seal  it  was  attached  in  the 
first  place  to  the  national  covenant  between  God  and  the  Jews. 
It  was  a  sign  of  the  existence  of  that  covenant,  and  that  the 
person  to  whom  it  was  affixed  was  included  within  its  pale.  It 
was  a  pledge  on  the  part  of  God  that  he  would  fulfil  the  pro- 
mises of  that  covenant.  If  any  Jew  fulfilled  his  part  of  the 
national  covenant,  and  in  that  sense  kept  the  law,  his  circum- 
cision profited  him.  It  secured  to  him  all  the  advantages  of 
Judaism.  But  this  rite  was,  in  the  second  place,  attached  to 
the  spiritual  covenant  formed  with  Abraham ;  that  is,  "  it  was 
a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith;"  it  was  designed  as  an 

*  Eiseamengei''s  Eatdecktea  Judeuthum,  Part  II.  p.  285. 

7 


98  ROMANS  II.  26. 

assurance  that  Abraham  was,  in  virtue  of  his  faith,  regarded  as 
righteous  in  the  sight  of  God.  To  all  those  Jews  who  had  the 
faith  of  Abraham,  and  thus  kept  the  covenant  established  with 
him,  circumcision  was  in  like  manner  profitable.  It  was  the 
visible  sign  and  pledge  that  all  who  believed  should  be  justified. 
On  the  other  hand,  if  either  the  national  or  spiritual  covenant 
was  broken,  circumcision  was  of  no  avail.  The  fact  that  an 
Israelite  was  circumcised,  did  not  save  him  from  excision  from 
the  people,  if  he  broke  any  of  the  fundamental  laws  of  Moses ; 
neither  could  circumcision  save  those  who,  being  destitute  of 
the  faith  of  Abraham,  appeared  as  sinners  before  the  bar  of 
God.  Paul  therefore  teaches  that  circumcision  had  no  inherent, 
magical  efficacy ;  that  it  had  no  value  beyond  that  of  a  sign  and 
seal ;  that  it  secured  the  blessings  of  the  covenant  to  those  who 
kept  the  covenant ;  but  to  the  transgressors  of  the  law  it  was 
of  no  avail.  This  latter  idea  he  expresses  by  saying,  -fj  Tvepczofiij 
aou  dxpo^uazia  yiyovsv,  thy  circumcision  has  become  uncircum- 
cision.  That  is,  it  is  of  no  use.  It  cannot  prevent  your  being 
dealt  with  as  a  transgressor,  or  treated  as  though  you  had  never 
been  circumcised. 

Verse  26.  Therefore,  if  the  uncircumcision  keep  the  right- 
eousness of  the  law.  This  verse  is  an  inference  (o5v)  from  the 
preceding.  It  was  there  taught  that  everything  depends  upon 
obedience  to  the  law.  God  will  judge  every  man  according  to 
his  works.  If  a  Jew,  though  circumcised,  break  the  law,  he 
shall  be  condemned ;  and  if  a  Gentile,  though  uncircumcised, 
keep  the  law,  he  shall  be  justified.  The  one  proposition  flows 
from  the  other ;  for  if  circumcision  is  in  itself  nothing,  its  pre- 
sence cannot  protect  the  guilty ;  its  absence  cannot  invalidate 
the  claims  of  the  righteous.  AcxaubptaTa,  decrees,  precepts,  what 
the  law  prescribes  as  right.  The  apostle  does  not  mean  to 
intimate  that  the  Gentiles  do  in  any  case  keep  the  righteous- 
ness of  the  law;  contrary  to  his  own  explicit  assertion,  that 
there  is  none  righteous,  no  not  one.  It  is  a  mere  hypothetical 
statement,  designed  to  show  that  everything  depends  on  obedi- 
Jence,  and  that  circumcision  cannot  be  the  ground  either  of 
I  justification  or  condemnation.  Shall  not  his  uncircumcision  be 
'  counted  for  circumcision  ?  The  phrase  Xoxi^ea&ai  zc  sf'c  tc,  in 
accordance  with  the  Hebrew  i  acn,  1  Sam.  i.  13,  Isa.  xxix.  17, 


ROMANS  II.  27.  99 

often  means  to  reckon  or  regard  one  thing  as  another.     Uncir- 
cumcision  shall  be  taken  for  circumcision. 

Verse  27.  Calvin  makes  this  verse  a  part  of  the  interro- 
gation begun  in  ver.  26,  a  mode  of  pointing  followed  by  Koppe, 
Lackmann,  Fritzsche,  and  many  others.  '  Shall  not  uncir- 
cumcision  be  reckoned  circumcision,  and  condemn  you  who 
break  the  law?'  Our  translators  supply  ob-j^c  before  xpiusc, 
and  make  ver.  27  a  distinct  interrogation,  'and  shall  not  the 
uncircumcision  condemn  you,'  &c.  Meyer  takes  ver.  27  cate- 
gorically, and  xac  in  the  sense  of  even  or  moreover,  so  that 
ver.  27  is  virtually  an  answer  to  the  preceding  question. 
'  Shall  not  uncircumcision  be  taken  for  circumcision  ?  (Yes, 
verily,)  it  will  even  condemn  you,'  &c.  In  either  way  the 
idea  is,  that  the  obedient  uncircumcised  heathen  would  be 
better  off,  he  would  stand  on  higher  ground,  than  the  disobe- 
dient circumcised  Jew.  It  is  only  putting  the  truth  taught 
in  this  verse  into  different  words,  to  say,  'the  unbaptized 
believer  shall  condemn  the  baptized  unbeliever.'  The  uncir- 
cumcision which  is  by  nature,  -fj  ex  ^uaeox;  dxpo^uffzia.  The 
position  of  the  article  shows  plainly  that  ix  (puauo^  qualifies 
d-xpo^oaria,  and  is  not  to  be  connected  with  the  following  par- 
ticiple xtkouaa.  The  sense  is,  "the  uncircumcision  which  is 
natural,"  and  not  'which  by  nature  keeps  the  law.'  If  it 
fulfil  the  law,  i.  e.  provided  it  is  obedient,  and  therefore  right- 
eous. Shall  judge,  xpivst,  by  implication,  shall  condemn;  the 
judgment  is  by  the  context  supposed  to  be  a  condemnatory 
one.  Comp.  Matt.  xii.  41.  Thee  who  hy  the  letter,  &c.;  as 
Tou  8ia  Ypdfxiiaroq,  thee  with  the  letter,  i.  e.  the  written  law. 
In  the  present  case  it  is  not  used  in  a  disparaging  sense,  for 
the  mere  verbal  meaning  in  opposition  to  the  spirit.  The 
context  rather  requires  that  ypd/jifxa  and  TTspiropiTJ  should  be 
taken  as  expressing  the  real  and  substantial  benefits  of  the 
Jews.  Our  version  renders  oid  by,  Beza  also  has  per.  He 
understands  the  apostle  to  mean  that  external  circumcision 
being  profaned  only  rendered  the  Jews  so  much  the  worse. 
But  as  did  with  the  genitive  so  often  means  with,  as  expressing 
the  circumstances  under  which  anything  is  done,  (as  di'  b7:op.6vrj<; 
ivith  patience,  8ca  Tzpoaxbixp.a.Toc,  with  offence^  the  meaning  is, 
Te,  qui  literas  et  circumcisionem  habens,  contra  legem  fads. 


100  ROMANS  11.  28,  29. 

Notwithstanding  they  had  the  law  and  circumcision,  they  were 
transgressors  of  the  law.  Calvin  makes  letter  and  circumcision 
to  mean  literal  circumcision;  but  this  is  unnecessary,  and 
unsuited  to  the  context ;  for  when  speaking  of  the  advantages 
of  the  Jews,  the  law  is  of  too  much  importance  to  allow  of 
the  word  which  expresses  it  being  merged  into  a  mere  epithet. 

Verses  28,  29.  For  not  he  who  is  externally  a  Jew,  is  a 
Jew,  &c.  These  verses  assign  the  reason  why  the  extei'nal 
rite  of  circumcision  can  avail  so  little.  God  looks  upon  the 
heart,  and  does  not  regard  mere  external  circumstances.  It 
is  not,  therefore,  mere  descent  from  Abraham,  nor  connection 
with  the  external  theocracy  or  church,  that  can  secure  his 
favour ;  but  the  possession  of  those  internal  dispositions  which 
external  rites  are  intended  to  symbolize.  Verse  28  contains 
the  negative,  ver.  29  the  affirmative  statement  of  this  gene- 
ral truth.  The  word  'Iooda7o<:  is  to  be  supplied  in  the  first 
member  of  the  sentence,  as  the  subject  is  6  iv  T(p  fav£p(p 
'IoudaiO(;,  and  the  predicate  '  louoaioz  kazcv.  The  same  remark 
may  be  made  with  regard  to  the  following  clause,  where  the 
subject  is  "fj  iv  T(f)  <pau£p(p,  iv  aapxl  Trepirojuij,  and  the  predicate 
TTspiToprj  iauu.  External  circumcision  in  the  flesh  is  not  circum- 
cision. (Pau£p6(;  apparent,  visible,  what  falls  under  the  observa- 
tion of  the  senses,  hence  external.  The  word  Jew  is  of  course 
to  be  taken  as  the  designation  of  the  people  of  God.  'He  is 
i^ot  one  of  the  people  of  God  who  is  such  externally.'  It  is 
nothing  external  that  constitutes  or  secures  this  peculiar 
relation  to  God.  The  affirmative  statement  is,  d^X  b  kv  z(p 
xpuTTTip  ''  loudaiot;,  [^  loudalot;  i(TTiP,~]  but  the  Jew  in  secret  is  a 
Jew.  As  in  the  preceding  verse,  part  of  the  subject  is  bor- 
rowed from  the  predicate,  so  here  and  in  the  following  clause 
the  predicate  is  to  be  borrowed  from  the  subject;  that  is, 
^loudalo^  iazcv  is  to  be  supplied  after  the  first  clause,  and 
Tteptxofx^  iaxcv  after  the  second  clause  of  this  verse,  so  that 
the  whole  reads  thus:  "But  he  who  is  inwardly  a  Jew,  is 
really  a  Jew;  and  the  circumcision  of  the  heart,  in  spirit  and 
not  in  letter,  is  circumcision.''  This  is  the  construction 
of  the  passage  almost  universally  adopted.  KpuTTTOi;  hidden, 
and  as  opposed  to  (pavepdi;  inward;  hence  ev  toj  xpuTzrip 
inwardly,  in  heart.    Comp.  1  Pet.  iii.  4.     True  circumcision 


ROMANS  II.  28,  29.  101 

is  described  as  nepiTOfirj  xapdcac;,  ev  Ttpeufiarc,  ou  ypd/ji/iaTe. 
These  latter  words  admit  of  diflferent  interpretations.  The 
apostle  contrasts  nveu/xa  and  ypd/jtfxa  in  Rom.  vii.  6,  and  2  Cor. 
iii.  6,  much  as  he  does  here.  In  chap.  vii.  6,  oldness  of  the  letter 
may  mean  the  condition  and  spirit  of  those  who  were  under  the 
law,  now  become  old ;  and  newness  of  the  spirit  may  mean  that 
new  condition  and  temper  which  the  Holy  Spirit  gives.  In 
2  Cor.  iii.  6,  Paul  says  he  was  made  a  minister  of  the  new  cove- 
nant, 01)  YpdpipiaTo^,  dXkd  7tvi\jp.aT0Q,  not  of  the  letter,  hut  of  the 
spirit,  i.  e.  not  of  the  law,  but  of  the  gospel ;  not  of  a  mere  ob- 
jective, legal  covenant,  but  of  that  which  derives  its  whole  cha- 
racter from  the  Spirit,  and  therefore  is  spirit,  or  in  the  widest 
sense  of  the  word,  spiritual.  Comp.  also  Gal.  iii.  3.  Guided  by 
these  passages,  Rlickert  understands  Tzuzopta  here  to  mean  the 
new  principle  of  life  imparted  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  iv  to  ex- 
press instrumentality.  Thus  the  sense  is :  The  circumcision  of 
the  heart  is  not  produced  or  effected  by  the  law,  but  by  this  new 
divine  principle  of  life.  The  same  interpretation  substantially 
is  given  by  Kbllner.  It  is  not,  however,  strictly  in  accordance 
with  the  mode  of  representation  adopted  in  the  Scriptures,  to 
speak  of  the  circumcision  of  the  heart,  i.  e.  sanctification,  as 
effected  by  anything  implanted  in  us.  Beza  makes  kv  izveufxaxt 
simply  exegetical  of  xapotaz,  and  gives  the  sense  thus :  "  Cujus 
vis  est  interior  et  in  animo,  sive  qua  circumcisi  sunt  affectus." 
Erasmus :  "  Quae  Spiritu  constat,  referens  ad  Spiritum  Sanc- 
tum, cujus  unius  opus  est  ista  circumcisio  dyziponoirfoz.  Mihi 
vero  videtur  Iv  itvEup.axi  additum  partim  propter  antithesin 
Ypdiiptavoz,  partim  ut  explicaret,  quid  vocaret  circumcisionem 
cordis."  According  to  this  view,  kv  ■Kvv'jp.o.rt  is  in  heart, 
and  is  tautological  with  the  clause  (circumcision  of  the  heart) 
which  it  should  explain.  And  besides,  the  opposition  between 
Ttvti)p.a  and  ypdpp.a  is  thus  destroyed.  Others  again  take  iv 
Tzvzuptarc  and  eu  ypd/iptarc  adverbially,  "after  a  spiritual,  not 
after  a  literal  or  external  way;"  or  adjectively,  spiritual,  not 
literal.  The  most  common,  and  on  the  whole  the  preferable 
interpretation  refers  Jtueufxa  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  gives  iv  • 
the  sense  of  %.  The  circumcision  of  the  heart  is  then  described 
as  effected  by  the  Spirit,  and  not  by  the  letter,  i.  e.  in  obedi- 
ence to  the  prescriptions  of  the  law.     Whose  praise  is  not  of 


102  ROMANS  II.  17—29. 

men,  hut  of  Grod.  The  relative  oh  is  to  be  referred  to  'loudaco^. 
The  true  Jew,  or  child  of  God,  is  one  whose  excellence  is  inter- 
nal, seen  and  acknowledged  by  God ;  not  in  its  nature  external, 
securing  the  notice  and  approbation  of  men.  If  the  relative  oh 
be  taken  as  neuter,  then  the  idea  is  the  same,  but  presented  in 
another  form :  '  Of  which  (i.  e.  of  this  spiritual  Judaism)  the 
praise  is  of  God.'  As,  however,  ^ lovodiot;  is  the  main  subject  in 
the  context,  the  former  explanation  is  the  more  natural.  The 
spiritual  import  of  circumcision  was  clearly  taught  in  the  Old 
Testament,  as  in  Deut.  xxx.  6 :  "I  will  circumcise  your  heart, 
and  the  heart  of  your  children,  to  love  the  Lord  thy  God."  Sec 
Deut.  X.  16,  Jer.  iv.  4 :  "  Circumcise  yourselves  to  the  Lord, 
and  take  away  the  foreskins  of  your  heart."  The  wicked  are 
therefore  called  "the  uncircumcised  in  heart,"  Jer.  ix.  29, 
Ezek.  xliv.  9,  Acts  vii.  56.  Comp.  Col.  ii.  11 :  "  In  whom  also 
ye  are  circumcised  with  the  circumcision  made  without  hands." 
This  is  what  he  calls  "the  circumcision  of  Christ,"  or  Christian 
circumcision ;  that  which  Christ  secures  and  gives.  As  circum- 
cision thus  signifies  inward  purification,  and  was  a  seal  of  the 
righteousness  of  faith,  it  Avas,  as  to  its  import  and  design,  iden- 
tical with  baptism.  Hence  what  in  Col.  ii.  11,  Paul  expresses 
by  saying.  Ye  are  circumcised,  he  expresses  in  ver.  12,  by 
saying,  Ye  are  buried  with  him  in  baptism.  What,  therefore, 
he  teaches  of  the  worthlessness  of  external  circumcision,  without 
internal  purity,  and  of  the  possibility  of  the  external  sign  being 
received  without  the  internal  grace,  is  no  less  true  of  baptism. 
See  1  Cor.  vii.  18,  19,  Gal.  vi.  15. 


DOCTRINE. 

1.  Membership  in  the  true  Church,  considered  as  a  visible 
society,  is  no  security  that  we  shall  obtain  the  favour  of  God. 
The  Jews,  before  the  advent,  were  members  of  the  true  and 
only  Church,  and  yet  Paul  teaches  that  they  were  not  on  this 
account  the  more  acceptable  to  God.  Multitudes  of  Jewish 
converts  were  members  of  the  apostolic  Church,  and  yet, 
retaining  their  former  doctrines  and  spirit,  were  in  the  gall  of 
bitterness,  ver.  17. 


KOMANS  II.  17—29.  103 

2.  Mere  knowledge  cannot  commend  us  to  God.  It  neither 
sanctifies  the  heart,  nor  of  itself  renders  men  more  useful. 
When  made  the  ground  of  confidence,  or  the  fuel  of  pride  and 
arrogance,  it  is  perverted  and  destructive,  vs.  18 — 20. 

3.  Superior  knowledge  enhances  the  guilt  of  sin,  and  in- 
creases the  certainty,  necessity,  and  severity  of  punishment, 
without  in  itself  increasing  the  power  of  resistance.  It  is, 
therefore,  a  great  mistake  to  make  knowledge  our  sole  depend- 
ence in  promoting  the  moral  improvement  of  men,  vs.  18 — 20. 

4.  The  sins  of  the  professing  people  of  God,  are  peculiarly 
offensive  to  him,  and  injurious  to  our  fellow-men,  vs.  22 — 24. 

5.  Here,  as  in  the  former  part  of  the  chapter,  the  leading 
idea  is,  that  God  is  just.  He  asks  not  whether  a  man  is  a  Jew 
or  a  Gentile,  a  Greek  or  barbarian,  bond  or  free,  but  what  is 
his  character?    Does  he  do  good  or  evil?  vs.  17 — 24. 

6.  According  to  the  apostle,  the  true  idea  of  a  sacrament  is 
not  that  it  is  a  mystic  rite,  possessed  of  inherent  efficacy,  or 
conveying  grace  as  a  mere  opus  operatum;  but  that  it  is  a  seal 
and  sign,  designed  to  confirm  our  faith  in  the  validity  of  the 
covenant  to  which  it  is  attached;  and,  from  its  significant 
character,  to  present  and  illustrate  some  great  spiritual  truth, 
ver.  25. 

7.  All  hopes  are  vain  which  are  founded  on  a  participation 
of  the  sacraments  of  the  Church,  even  when  they  are  of  divine 
appointment,  as  circumcision,  baptism,  and  the  Lord's  supper; 
much  more  when  they  are  of  human  invention,  as  penance,  and 
extreme  unction,  vs.  26,  27. 

8.  Religion  and  religious  services,  to  be  acceptable  to  God, 
must  be  of  the  heart.  Mere  external  homage  is  of  no  account, 
vs.  28,  29. 


KEMARKS. 

1.  The  sins  and  refuges  of  men  are  alike  in  all  ages.  The 
Jew  expected  salvation  because  he  was  a  Jew,  so  does  the 
Roman  Catholic  because  he  is  a  Roman  Catholic,  the  Greek 
because  he  is  a  Greek,  and  so  of  others.  Were  it  ever  so  cer- 
tain that  the  Church  to  which  we  belong  is  the  true,  apostolic, 


104  ROMANS  II.  17—29. 

universal  Church,  it  remains  no  less  certain  that  without  holi- 
ness no  man  shall  see  God,  ver.  17,  &c. 

2.  The  possession  of  superior  knowledge  should  make  us 
anxious,  first,  to  go  right  ourselves,  and  then  to  guide  others 
right.  To  preach  against  evils  which  we  ourselves  commit, 
while  it  aggravates  our  guilt,  is  little  likely  to  do  others  much 
good,  ver.  18,  &c. 

3.  Christians  should  ever  remember  that  they  are  the  epistles 
of  Jesus  Christ,  known  and  read  of  all  men;  that  God  is 
honoured  by  their  holy  living,  and  that  his  name  is  blasphemed 
when  they  act  wickedly,  vs.  23,  24. 

4.  Whenever  true  religion  declines,  the  disposition  to  lay 
undue  stress  on  external  rites  is  increased.  The  Jews,  when 
they  lost  their  spirituality,  supposed  that  circumcision  had 
power  to  save  them.  '  Great  is  the  virtue  of  circumcision,' 
they  cried;  'no  circumcised  person  enters  hell.'  The  Chris- 
tian Church,  when  it  lost  its  spirituality,  taught  that  water  in 
baptism  washed  away  sin.  How  large  a  part  of  nominal  Chris- 
tians rest  all  their  hopes  on  the  idea  of  the  inherent  efficacy  of 
external  rites !  ver.  25,  &c. 

5.  While  it  is  one  dangerous  extreme  to  make  religion  con- 
sist in  the  observance  of  external  ceremonies,  it  is  another  to 
undervalue  them,  when  of  divine  appointment.  Paul  does  not 
say  that  circumcision  was  useless;  he  asserts  its  value.  So, 
likewise,  the  Christian  sacraments,  baptism  and  the  Lord's 
supper,  are  of  the  utmost  importance,  and  to  neglect  or  reject 
them  is  a  great  sin,  ver.  26,  &c. 

6.  If  the  heart  be  right  in  the  sight  of  God,  it  matters  little 
what  judgment  men  may  form  of  us ;  and,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  approbation  of  men  is  a  poor  substitute  for  the  favour  of 
God,  ver.  29. 


ROMANS  III.  1—8.  106 


CHAPTER    III. 

CONTENTS. 

This  chapter  may  be  divided  into  three  parts.  The  first  con- 
tains a  brief  statement  and  refutation  of  the  Jewish  objections 
to  the  apostle's  reasoning,  vs.  1 — 8.  The  second,  a  confirma- 
tion of  his  doctrine  from  the  testimony  of  Scripture;  and  a 
formal  drawing  out  and  declaration  of  his  conclusion,  that  by 
the  works  of  the  law  no  flesh  living  can  be  justified  before 
God,  vs.  9 — 20.  The  third,  an  exposition  of  the  gospel  method 
of  justification,  vs.  21 — 31. 


ROMANS   III.  1—8. 

ANALYSIS. 

The  first  objection  to  Paul's  reasoning  here  presented  is, 
that  according  to  his  doctrine  the  Jew  has  no  advantage  over 
the  Gentile,  ver.  1.  The  apostle  denies  the  correctness  of  this 
inference  from  what  he  had  said,  and  admits  that  the  Jews  have 
great  advantages  over  all  other  people,  ver.  2.  The  second 
objection  is,  that  God  having  promised  to  be  the  God  of  the 
Jews,  their  unfaithfulness,  even  if  admitted,  does  not  release 
him  from  his  engagements,  or  make  his  promise  of  no  efi'ect, 
ver.  3.  Paul,  in  answer,  admits  that  the  faithfulness  of  God 
must  not  be  called  in  question,  let  what  will  happen,  vs.  4,  5; 
but  he  shows  that  the  principle  on  which  the  Jews  expected 
exemption  from  pimishment,  viz.  because  their  unrighteousness 
commended  the  righteousness  of  God,  was  false.  This  he 
proves  by  showing  first,  that  if  their  principle  was  correct,  God 
could  not  punish  any  one.  Gentile  or  Jew,  vs.  5 — 7 ;  and 
secondly,  that  it  would  lead  to  this  absurdity,  that  it  is  right  to 
do  evil  that  good  may  come,  ver.  8. 


106  ROMANS  III.  1,  2. 

COMMENTARY. 

Verse  1.  What  then  is  the  advantage  of  the  Jew?  The 
conclusion  at  which  the  apostle  had  arrived  at  the  end  of  the 
preceding  chapter  was,  that  the  Jews,  no  less  than  the  Gentiles, 
are  to  be  judged  according  to  their  works,  and  by  their  know- 
ledge of  the  divine  will ;  and  that  being  thus  judged,  they  are 
exposed  to  condemnation,  notwithstanding  their  circumcision 
and  all  their  other  advantages.  The  most  obvious  objection  in 
the  mind  of  a  Jew  to  this  conclusion  must  have  been,  that  it 
was  inconsistent  with  the  acknowledged  privileges  and  supe- 
riority of  his  nation.  This  objection  the  apostle  here  presents; 
the  answer  follows  in  the  next  verse :  Fltpcaaoi;,  over  and  above, 
abundant;  and  in  a  comparative  sense,  better,  and  substantively, 
as  in  the  present  instance,  excellence,  preeminence.  What  is 
the  preeminence  or  superiority  of  the  Jew?  Comp.  Eccles. 
vi.  11,  ri  TZtptaabv  T(p  dp&pconoj;  what  advantage  has  man? 
The  second  question  in  this  verse,  what  is  the  benefit  of  circum- 
cision? is  by  some  considered  as  a  repetition  of  the  first;  cir- 
cumcision being  taken  as  the  mere  sign  of  Judaism.  '  What  is 
the  advantage  of  the  Jew  ?  or  what  is  the  benefit  of  Judaism  ?' 
But  circumcision  as  a  rite  was  so  important  in  the  estimation 
of  the  Jews,  and  is  made  so  prominent  by  the  apostle  in  the 
preceding  context,  that  it  is  better  to  consider  the  second  ques- 
tion as  referring  to  the  rite  itself. 

Verse  2.  Much,  in  every  way.  The  answer  to  the  objection 
implied  in  the  preceding  verse,  is  a  denial  of  its  correctness  as 
an  inference  from  the  apostle's  reasoning.  It  does  not  follow, 
because  the  Jews  are  to  be  judged  according  to  their  works, 
that  there  is  no  advantage  in  being  the  peculiar  people  of  God, 
having  a  divine  revelation,  &c.  IIpcozov  pthv  ydp.  These  words 
are  rendered  by  Beza,  primarium  enim  (illud  est;)  comp.  Luke 
xix.  47,  Acts  V.  2.  Calvin  says,  ^^npojzov  significat  prsecipue 
vel  praesertim,  hoc  sensu,  Etsi  unum  istud  esset,  quod  habent 
Dei  oracula  sibi  commissa,  satis  valere  debet  ad  eorum  digni- 
tatem." Our  translators  adopt  the  same  view.  But  to  both 
of  the  interpretations  the  particle  ydp  furnishes  an  objection. 
The  third  and  simplest  view  is,  that  the  words  in  question  mean 
first,  in  the  first  place,  as  in  1  Cor.  xi.  18 ;  ydp  is  then  namely, 


ROMANS  III.  3.  107 

for  example.  That  the  enumeration  is  not  carried  on,  is  no 
serious  objection  to  this  explanation,  as  we  have  other  examples 
of  the  same  kind.  See  chap.  i.  8.  Because  they  were  entrusted 
with  the  oracles  of  Grod.  The  subject  of  Incazeu&rjaav,  viz. 
"loodaioe  is  implied  by  the  connection ;  ra  Xoyca  is  the  accusa- 
tive ;  comp.  Gal.  ii.  7 :  Timiartonat  to  ehayyiXcov,  1  Cor.  ix.  17, 
1  Thess.  ii.  4.  Some,  as  Theodoret,  Beza,  &c.,  understand  by 
za  Xoyca  rod  deoo,  the  law;  others,  as  Grotius,  Tholuck,  &c., 
the  Messianic  promises;  others,  as  Calvin,  Rosenmiiller,  De 
Wette,  the  whole  Scriptures.  In  favour  of  this  last  is  the  usage 
of  the  phrase  which  in  the  Old  Testament  is  used  for  the  reve- 
lation of  God  in  general,  and  in  the  New  Testament,  for  any 
divine  communication.  Heb.  v.  12,  1  Pet.  iv.  11.  The  words 
therefore  are  general  in  their  meaning,  and  there  is  nothing  in 
the  context  to  limit  them ;  for  the  apostle  is  speaking  of  the 
treasure  committed  to  the  safe  custody  of  the  Jews;  that 
deposit  of  divine  knowledge  by  which  they  were  distinguished 
from  all  other  nations.  Here,  as  in  innumerable  other  places, 
the  sacred  writers  of  the  New  Testament  use  forms  of  express- 
ion which  clearly  imply  that  they  regarded  the  sacred  writings 
of  the  Jews  as  really  the  word  of  God. 

Verse  3.  Ti  ydp;  What  then?  See  Philip,  i.  18 — a  formula 
used  to  introduce  an  explanation,  confirmation,  or  vindication 
of  a  preceding  assertion;  or  to  start  an  objection  for  the  pur- 
pose of  answering  it.  In  the  present  instance  it  is  agreed  that 
the  apostle  designs  to  vindicate  what  he  had  previously  taught; 
but  whether  ver.  3  refers  to  ver.  2,  or  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
Jews  were  as  much  exposed  to  condemnation  as  the  Gentiles,  is 
not  so  plain.  According  to  the  former  view,  the  design  of  this 
verse  is  to  confirm  what  is  said  in  ver.  2 :  'To  the  Jews  were 
committed  the  promises  of  God,  or  oracles  of  God.  This  is  a 
great  advantage  ;  for  if  some  of  them  disbelieve  those  promises, 
and  reject  the  Messiah,  God  remains  faithful,  and  will  accom- 
plish all  his  gracious  purposes.'  Thus  substantially,  Calvin, 
Beza,  Tholuck,  Fritzsche,  Ruckert,  Meyer,  and  many  others. 
According  to  the  other  view,  the  apostle  here  presents  and 
answers  another  objection  to  his  previous  reasoning :  '  What  if 
we  are  unfaithful,'  says  the  Jew,  '  does  that  invalidate  the  faith- 
fulness of  God  ?    Has  he  not  promised  to  be  a  God  to  Abraham 


108  ROMANS  III.  3. 

and  to  his  seed  ?  Has  he  not  entered  into  a  solemn  covenant 
to  grant  his  people  all  the  benej&ts  of  the  Messiah's  kingdom  ? 
This  covenant  is  not  suspended  on  our  moral  character.  If  we 
adhere  to  the  covenant  by  being  circumcised  and  observing  the 
law,  the  fidelity  of  God  is  pledged  for  our  salvation.  We  may 
therefore  be  as  wicked  as  you  would  make  us  out  to  be ;  that 
does  not  prove  that  we  shall  be  treated  as  heathen.'  For  the 
latter  view  it  may  be  urged,  1.  That  it  is  better  suited  to  the 
context.  It  is  plain  that  the  whole  of  the  first  part  of  this 
chapter  is  an  answer  to  the  objections  of  the  Jews  to  the  apos- 
tle's doctrine  that  they  were  exposed  to  condemnation.  This  is 
clear  as  to  the  first  verse,  and  to  the  fifth  and  those  that  follow 
it.  It  is  therefore  more  consistent  with  the  design  of  the  pas^^ 
sage,  to  make  this  verse  an  answer  to  the  main  objection  of  the 
Jews,  than  to  consider  it  a  mere  confirmation  of  what  is  said  in 
ver.  2.  This  consideration  has  the  more  force,  since  on  the 
other  view  of  the  passage  the  principal  ground  of  confidence  of 
the  Jews,  viz.  their  peculiar  relation  to  God,  is  left  unnoticed. 
Their  great  objection  to  Paul's  applying  his  general  principles 
of  justice  to  their  case  was  that  their  situation  was  peculiar : 
'  God  has  chosen  us  as  his  people  in  Abraham.  If  we  retain 
our  relation  to  him  by  circumcision  and  the  observance  of 
the  law,  we  shall  never  be  treated  or  condemned  as  the  Gen- 
tiles.' Traces  of  this  opinion  abound  in  the  New  Testament, 
and  it  is  openly  avowed  by  the  Jewish  writers.  "Think  not," 
says  oui'  Saviour,  "  to  say  within  yourselves.  We  have  Abraham 
for  our  father,"  Matt.  iii.  9.  "We  be  Abraham's  seed,"  John 
viii.  33.  Comp.  Rom.  ii.  17,  ix.  6,  and  other  passages,  in  which 
Paul  argues  to  prove  that  being  the  natural  descendants  of 
Abraham  is  not  enough  to  secure  the  favour  of  God.  That  such 
was  the  doctrine  of  the  Jews  is  shown  by  numerous  passages 
from  their  writings.  "If  a  Jew  commit  all  manner  of  sins," 
says  Abarbanel,  "  he  is  indeed  of  the  number  of  sinning  Israel- 
ites, and  will  be  punished  according  to  his  sins;  but  he  has 
notwithstanding  a  portion  in  eternal  life."  The  same  sentiment 
is  expressed  in  the  book  Torath  Adam,  fol.  100,  in  nearly  the 
same  words,  and  the  reason  assigned  for  it,  "  That  all  Israel  has 
a  portion  in  eternal  life."*     This  is  a  favourite  phrase  with 

*  Eiaenmenger's  Ent.  Judeuthum,  Part  II.  p.  293. 


ROMANS  III.  3.  109 

the  Rabbins,  and  frequently  occurs  in  their  writings.  Justin 
Martyr,  as  quoted  by  Grotius  on  chap.  ii.  13,  attributes  this 
doctrine  to  the  Jews  of  his  day :  "  They  suppose  that  to  them 
universally,  who  are  of  the  seed  of  Abraham,  no  matter  how 
sinful  and  disobedient  to  God  they  may  be,  the  eternal  kingdom 
shall  be  given."  This  interpretation  therefore  makes  the  verse 
in  question  present  the  objection  which  the  Jews  would  be  most 
likely  to  urge.  2.  A  second  consideration  in  its  favour  is,  that 
it  best  satisfies  the  meaning  of  the  words.  The  other  view 
makes  Paul  say  that  the  unfaithfulness  of  some  of  the  Jews, 
some  here  and  there,  could  not  render  the  promise  of  no  effect. 
It  would  be  natural  for  the  Jews  thus  to  soften  down  the  state- 
ment of  the  case.  But  Paul  had  not  said  that  some  of  the  Jews 
were  unfaithful,  but  that  they  were  all  under  condemnation; 
that  as  to  this  point  there  was  no  difference  between  them  and 
the  Gentiles,  since  all  had  sinned  and  come  short  of  the  glory 
of  God.  It  cannot  escape  notice  how  completely  the  doctrine 
of  the  Jews  has  been  transferred  by  ritualists  to  Christianity. 
They  held  that  if  a  man  was  circumcised  and  remained  within 
the  Theocracy,  he  might  be  punished  for  his  sins,  but  he  would 
ultimately  be  saved.  So  ritualists  hold  that  all  who  are  bap- 
tized and  remain  within  the  pale  of  the  true  Church,  though 
they  may  suffer  for  their  sins  here  or  hereafter  (in  purgatory,) 
are  certain  to  be  finally  saved. 

If  some  did  not  believe?  The  word  ifiior-qaav  may  mean 
dishelieved,  or  were  unfaithful.  Tholuck,  Fritzsche,  Ruckert 
(2d  edition,)  Meyer,  say  the  former,  and  explain  the  passage 
thus:  'The  promises  (ra  Xoyia)  committed  to  the  Jews  are  a 
great  distinction ;  and  though  some  of  the  Jews  have  not 
believed  those  promises,  nor  received  the  Messiah,  still  God  is 
faithful.'  The  great  majority  of  commentators  say  the  latter, 
and  consider  the  apostle  as  stating  the  want  of  fidelity  of  the 
Jews  to  the  trust  committed  to  them,  i.  e.  to  the  covenant  made 
with  their  fathers,  as  no  reason  for  assuming  a  want  of  fidelity 
on  the  part  of  God.  That  dmaTBTv  may  have  the  sense  here 
assigned  to  it  is  plain  from  2  Tim.  ii.  13 ;  and  from  the  sense 
of  dniaua  in  Heb.  iii.  12,  19,  and  of  dTriaro^  in  Luke  xii.  46, 
Rev.  xxi.  8.  To  understand  the  passage  as  referring  to  want 
of  faith  in  Christ,  seems  inconsistent  with  the  whole  context. 


110  ROMANS  III.  4. 

The  apostle  has  not  come  to  the  exposition  of  the  gospel ;  he  is 
still  engaged  in  the  preliminary  discussion  designed  to  show 
that  the  Jews  and  Gentiles  are  under  sin,  and  exposed  to  con- 
demnation; an  exposure  from  which  no  peculiar  privileges  of 
the  former,  and  no  promise  of  God  to  their  nation,  could  pro- 
tect them. 

Verse  4.  Let  it  not  he;  the  frequently  recurring  formula  to 
express  strong  aversion  or  denial.  The  objection  presented 
in  the  preceding  verse  is,  that  the  apostle's  doctrine  as  to  the 
condemnation  of  the  Jews  is  inconsistent  with  the  faithfulness 
of  God.  Is  the  faith  of  God  without  effect?  asks  the  objector. 
By  no  means,  answers  the  apostle;  that  is  no  fair  inference 
from  my  doctrine.  There  is  no  breach  of  the  promises  of  God 
involved  in  the  condemnation  of  wicked  Jews.  How  the  con- 
demnation of  the  Jews  is  consistent  with  the  promises  of  God, 
he  shows  in  a  subsequent  part  of  his  epistle,  chaps,  ix. — xi.; 
here  he  merely  asserts  the  fact,  and  shows  that  the  opposite 
assumption  leads  to  an  absurdity.  Let  Gfod  be  true,  but  every 
man  a  liar.  That  is,  the  truth  and  fidelity  of  God  must  be 
acknowledged,  whatever  be  the  consequence.  This  is  said  to 
express  the  strongest  aversion  to  the  consequence  charged  on 
his  doctrine.  rivsff&oD  has  its  proper  sense,  fiat,  let  him 
become,  i.  e.  be  seen  and  acknowledged  as  true.  This  disposi- 
tion to  justify  God  under  all  circumstances,  the  apostle  illus- 
trates by  the  conduct  and  language  of  David,  who  acknowledged 
the  justice  of  God  even  in  his  own  condemnation,  and  said, 
"Against  thee  only  have  I  sinned;  that  thou  mightest  be 
justified  in  thy  sayings,  and  overcome  when  thou  art  judged;" 
i.  e.  that  thy  rectitude,  under  all  circumstances,  might  be  seen 
and  acknowledged.  In  the  Hebrew,  the  last  verb  of  the  verse 
is  active,  when  thou  judgest;  in  the  Septuagint,  a  passive  form 
is  used,  when  thou  art  judged.  This  latter  Paul  follows, 
because  the  sentiment  in  either  case  is  the  same.  God  is  seen 
and  acknowledged  to  be  just.  The  sacred  writers  of  the  New 
Testament  often  depart  from  the  words  of  th*e  Old  Testament  in 
their  citations,  being  careful  only  to  give  the  mind  of  the  Spirit. 
"Scimus,"  says  Calvin,  "apostolos  in  recitandis  Scripturae 
verbis  ssepe  esse  liberiores ;  quia  satis  habebant  si  ad  rem  appo- 
site citarent;  quare  non  tanta  illis  fuit  verborum  religio." 


ROMANS  III.  5.  Ill 

Verse  5.  But  if  our  unrighteousness  commend  the  righteous- 
ness of  Crod,  what  shall  we  then  say  ?  Adcxia  is  not  to  be  taken 
in  the  restricted  sense  of  injustice,  nor  as  equivalent  to  aTicazia 
in  the  preceding  verse,  but  in  the  comprehensive  sense  of  un- 
righteousness, wickedness.  It  is  the  opposite  of  ocxacoaovrj^ 
rectitude,  righteousness,  which  includes  all  moral  excellence. 
The  righteousness  of  God  is  here,  not  his  goodness,  which  the 
context  does  not  require  and  usage  does  not  authorize,  but 
rectitude,  that  attribute  which  is  manifested  in  doing  right. 
Zuv'iarrjiJLc,  in  the  New  Testament,  is  to  place  with  or  before  any 
one ;  and  hence  either  to  commerid,  to  recommend,  Rom,  xvi.  1, 
2  Cor.  iii.  1,  v.  12 ;  or  to  set  forth,  to  render  conspicuous;  see 
Rom.  V.  8,  2  Cor.  vi.  4.  The  latter  is  obviously  the  sense 
required  in  the  present  instance.  That  this  verse  is  in  answer 
to  an  objection  is  obvious;  but  that  objection  is  not  derived 
from  the  language  of  ver.  4.  Paul  had  said  nothing  there  to 
give  any  colour  to  the  suggestion,  that  he  himself  held  that  it 
would  be  unrighteous  in  God  to  punish  the  wicked.  He  had 
simply  said,  that  the  truth  of  God  was  to  be  admitted  and 
acknowledged,  though  all  men  were  liars.  From  this  it  could 
not  be  made  an  inference  that  we  may  do  evil  that  good  may 
come.  It  is  not  a  false  inference  from  ver.  4,  but  a  new  objec- 
tion to  his  general  conclusion  that  he  is  here  answering :  '  Not 
only  is  God's  fidelity  pledged  to  our  salvation,  but  the  very  fact 
of  our  being  unrighteous  will  render  his  righteousness  the  more 
conspicuous;  and  consequently  it  would  be  unjust  in  him  to 
punish  us  for  what  glorifies  himself.'  This  is  the  thought;  the 
form  in  which  it  is  presented  is  determined  by  the  fact  that  the 
apostle  does  not  introduce  the  person  of  the  objector,  but  states 
the  objection  in  his  own  person,  in  the  form  of  a  question.  It 
is  plain,  however,  that  the  point  of  the  argument  is  that  God 
cannot  consistently  punish  those  whose  unrighteousness  serves 
to  display  his  own  rectitude ;  and  this  is  supposed  to  be  urged 
to  show  that  the  Jews,  notwithstanding  their  sins,  were  not 
exposed  to  condemnation.  If  our  unrighteousness  commend 
the  righteousness  of  God  is  the  suggestion ;  the  inference,  which 
the  Jews  were  disposed  to  draw,  and  which  Paul  asks,  whether 
they  would  venture  to  make,  is  that  God  is  unjust  who  taketh 
vengeance;    6   dzb^  6  kmcpepcov  tt^v  ^py^v,   Cfod  the  taker  of 


112  ROMANS  III.  6. 

vengeance;  he  whose  prerogative  it  is  to  inflict  the  punishment 
due  to  sin.  That  the  apostle  is  not  in  this  verse  expressing  his 
own  sentiments,  he  intimates  by  saying,  xara  dvd^pwnov  Xifo),  I 
speak  as  a  man.  This  formula,  which  is  of  frequent  occurrence, 
means  to  speak  as  men  are  accustomed  to  speak ;  and  as  men 
are  in  general  wicked,  to  speak  or  act  after  the  manner  of  men, 
is  to  speak  or  act  wickedly.  It  depends,  however,  entirely  on 
the  context  whether  this  idea  is  implied.  When  Paul  asks, 
"Are  ye  not  carnal,  and  walk  as  men?"  1  Cor.  iii.  3,  the  case 
is  plain.  But  when  in  Gal.  iii.  15,  he  says,  "Brethren,  I  speak 
as  a  man,"  he  means  merely  to  appeal  to  what  was  commonly 
acknowledged  as  true  among  men.  See  also  1  Cor.  ix.  8.  When 
in  Rom.  vi.  19,  he  says,  avd-pdyncvov  Xiyo),  it  is  plain  from  the 
context  that  he  means,  in  a  manner  adapted  to  the  comprehen- 
sion of  men.  And  in  the  present  case,  where  he  is  not  express- 
ing his  own  sentiments,  xara  dv&pwnov  Xiyco  is  designed  to 
declare  that  he  is  not  speaking  in  his  character  of  an  apostle 
or  Christian,  but  speaking  as  others  speak,  expressing  their 
thoughts,  not  his  own. 

Verse  6.  In  answer  to  the  question  whether  God  is  unjust 
in  punishing  those  whose  unrighteousness  renders  his  own 
righteousness  the  more  conspicuous,  he  says :  By  no  means, 
since  in  that  case  how  can  Gfod  judge  the  world?  There  is  here 
an  answer  to  the  question,  and  a  proof  of  the  correctness  of 
that  answer.  There  are  three  views  which  may  be  taken  of  the 
nature  of  this  proof.  The  first  supposes  xoafio^  to  mean  the 
Gentiles  as  distinguished  from  the  Jews.  The  sense  then  is : 
If  God  cannot  punish  sin  under  the  circumstances  supposed,  he 
cannot  even  punish  the  heathen,  for  their  unrighteousness 
serves  to  commend  his  righteousness.  This  view  is  clear  and 
satisfactory  as  far  as  the  argument  is  concerned,  and  is  adopted 
by  Koppe,  Reiche,  Olshausen,  &c.  Besides  the  pertinency  of 
the  argument  as  thus  explained,  this  interpretation  is  supported 
by  the  frequent  use  of  xba[xoi;  to  designate  the  world  in  dis- 
tinction from  the  Theocracy,  or  the  Church.  1  Cor.  vi,  2,  xi.  32, 
Rom.  xi.  12,  John  xii.  31,  1  John  iv.  17,  &c.  The  principal 
objection  to  it  arises  from  the  difficulties  in  which  it  involves 
the  explanation  of  the  following  verse.  The  second  view  of  the 
passage  supposes  the  argument  to  rest  on  the  admitted  fact  that 


ROMANS  III.  6.  113 

God  is  the  judge  of  all  the  earth ;  if  so,  he  must  be  just.     It  is 
impossible  tha^t  God    should  be  unjust,   if  he  is  to  judge  the 
world;  but  he  is  to  judge  the  world,  therefore  he  is  not  unjust. 
"Sumit  argumentum  ab  ipsius  Dei  oflScio,"  says  Calvin,   "quo 
probet  id  esse  impossibile ;  judicahit  Deus  hunc  mundum,  ergo 
injustus  esse  non  potest."     To  the  same  purpose  Grotius  says: 
"Nullo  modo  possumus  Deum  injustum  imaginari  quem   cum 
Abrahamo  judicem  mundi  agnoscimus."     This   view  is  given 
also  by  Tholuck,    De  Wette,    Riickert,   Kdllner,   and  Meyer. 
The  obvious  objection  to  it  is,  that  it  makes  the  apostle  assume 
the  thing  to  be  proved.     He  says,   '  God  cannot  be  unjust, 
because  he  is  the  judge  of  the  world,  and  the  judge  of  the  world 
must  be  just.'     But  it  is  no  more  certain  that  the  judge  of  the 
world  must  be  just,  than  that  God  is  just,  which  is  the  point  to 
be  established.     Riickert,  in  his   characteristic   assumption  of 
superiority  to  the  apostle,  admits  that  the  argument  is  "  weak, 
very  weak;"  but  he  not  the  less  confidently  ascribes  it  to  the 
apostle.     The  misapprehension  of  the  argument  in  this  verse 
arises  out  of  a  misapprehension  of  the  previous  reasoning,  and 
of  the  precise  point  of  the  objection  which  is  here  answered. 
Paul  is  not  guarding  against  any  false  inference  from  his  own 
reasoning ;  he  is  not  teaching  that  though  God  is  seen  to  be 
just  when  he  speaks,  and  clear  when  he  judges,  we  must  not 
hence  infer  that  he  is  unjust  in  punishing  the  sin  which  com- 
mends his   own   righteousness,  which  would  be  indeed   "  eine 
erbarmliche  Einwendung,"  (a  pitiable   subterfuge,)  as  Reiche 
calls  it ;  but  he  is  answering  the  objections  of  the  Jews  to  his 
doctrine,  not  their  false  inferences.     To  the  declaration  that 
they  were  exposed  to  condemnation,  the  Jews  pleaded  the  pro- 
mise of  God,  which  their  unfaithfulness  could  not  render  of  no 
effect,  and  the  less  so  because  their  unrighteousness  would  serve 
to  render  the  righteousness  of  God  the  more  conspicuous.    Paul 
says  on  this  principle  God  cannot  judge  the  world.    The  ground 
assumed  by  the  Jews  might  be  assumed  by  all  mankind,  and  if 
valid  in  the  one  case  it  must  be  in  all.     In  this  view  the  answer 
is  complete  and  satisfactory;    it  is  a  reductio  ad  absurdum. 
The    correctness   of   this    explanation   is    confirmed   by   what 
follows. 
8 


114  ROMANS  III.  7,  8. 

Verses  7,  8.  These  verses  are  the  amplification  and  con- 
firmation of  the  answer  given  in  the  sixth  to  the  objection  of 
the  Jews.  These  verses  are  designed  to  show  that  if  the  groui^d 
assumed  by  them  was  valid,  not  only  may  every  sinner  claim 
exemption,  but  it  would  follow  that  it  is  right  to  do  evil  that 
good  may  come.  The  connection  by  ^ot/?  is  therefore  with  the 
sixth  verse :  '  God  could  not  judge  the  world,  for  any  sinner 
may  say,  If  the  truth  of  God  more  abounds  through  my  lie, 
to  his  glory,  why  am  I  yet  judged  as  a  sinner?'  The  truth 
of  Crod.  As  dlijd^eca  is  not  unfrequently  opposed  to  ddcxla^ 
it  may  have  here  the  sense  of  otxcuoauvq^  and  designate  the 
divine  excellence;  then  (ptuafjia,  in  the  following  clause,  must 
mean  falsehood  towards  God,  wickedness :  '  If  the  excellence  of 
God  is  rendered  more  conspicuous  by  my  wickedness.'  But  as 
it  was  on  the  truth  or  veracity  of  God,  his  adherence  to  his 
promises,  that  the  false  confidence  of  the  Jews  was  placed,  it  is 
probable  that  the  apostle  intended  the  words  to  be  taken  in 
their  more  limited  sense.  Hath  more  abounded  unto  his  glory. 
Ilepcaae'jscv,  to  be  abundant,  rich,  or  great;  and  by  implication, 
in  a  comparative  sense,  to  be  more  abundant,  or  conspicuous, 
Matt.  V.  20,  1  Cor.  xv.  58.  The  latter  is  the  sense  here,  'If 
the  truth  of  God  has  been  made  the  more  conspicuous;'  e/c  Trji> 
do^au  aoTou,  so  that  he  is  glorified.  Why  am  I  also  still  judged 
as  a  sinner?  xdyco,  either  even  I,  or  /  also;  I  as  well  as  others ; 
or  even  I  a  Jew ;  or,  according  to  another  view  of  the  context, 
even  I  a  Gentile :  ere,  yet,  i.  e.  notwithstanding  my  falsehood  is 
the  means  of  displaying  the  glory  of  God.  According  to  the 
view  now  given,  the  use  of  the  first  person  is  sufficiently  ex- 
plained by  saying,  as  has  often  been  done,  "  suam  personam 
ponit  pro  quS.vis  alia."  /,  therefore,  stands  for  any  one :  'Any 
one  may  say.  Why  am  I  also  judged  as  a  sinner  ?'  Those  how- 
ever who  understand  mojioz,  in  the  preceding  verse,  to  mean 
the  Gentiles,  suppose  that  the  apostle  here  personates  a  heathen, 
who  is  made  to  ask,  'If  the  divine  majesty  is  the  more  displayed 
by  my  idolatry,  why  am  even  I  judged  as  a  sinner?'  This 
interpretation  gives  a  very  good  sense,  because  the  Jews  readily 
admitted  that  the  Gentiles  were  exposed  to  condemnation,  and 
therefore  any  principle  which  was  shown  to  exculpate  them,  the 
Jews  must  acknowledge  to  be  false.     The  objections  to  this 


ROMANS  III.  8.  115 

view  of  the  passage  are  the  unnecessary  limitation  which  it 
imposes  on  the  word  xda/xoi;,  ver.  6,  and  the  unusual,  if  not 
unauthorized  sense,  which  it  requires  to  be  given  to  the  words 
d?.ij&£ca  and  (peuafxa,  the  latter  not  being  elsewhere  used  for 
idolatry,  and  the  former,  in  this  connection  at  least,  not  ad- 
mitting of  the  version,  truth  concerning  Grod,  i.  e.  the  true 
God. 

Verse  8.  Almost  all  the  modern  commentators  are  agreed 
in  considering  this  verse  as  a  continuation  of  the  question  com- 
menced in  the  seventh,  and  in  assuming  an  irregularity  in  the 
construction,  arising  from  the  introduction  of  the  parenthetical 
clause  in  the  middle  of  the  verse :  '  If  your  principle  is  correct, 
why  am  I  judged  as  a  sinner;  and  why  not  let  us  do  evil,  that 
good  may  come  T  Having  commenced  the  question,  he  inter- 
rupts himself  to  notice  the  slanderous  imputation  of  this  doc- 
trine to  himself — as  we  are  slandered,  and  as  some  affirm  we 
say,  that  we  should  do  evil  that  good  may  come.  IJoiijaaj/iev, 
therefore,  instead  of  being  connected  with  the  (zi)  /uij  at  the 
beginning  of  the  verse,  is  connected  by  ou  with  the  immediately 
preceding  verb.  See  Winer,  §  63.  Whose  condemnation  is  just. 
Paul  thus  expresses  his  abhorrence  of  the  principle  that  we  may 
do  evil  that  good  may  come.  Tholuck  and  others  refer  (Zv  to 
the  ^Xaaipriixoovxzz,  to  the  slanderers  of  the  apostle ;  but  that 
clause  is  virtually  parenthetical,  and  it  is  not  blaspheming  the 
apostle,  but  teaching  a  doctrine  subversive  of  all  morality,  that 
is  here  condemned.  Calvin  unites,  in  a  measure,  both  views  of 
the  passage:  "Duplici  autem  nomine  damnabilis  fuit  eorum 
perversitas;  primum  quibus  venire  haec  impietas  in  mentem 
potuerit  usque  ad  ipsum  assensum,  deinde  qui  traducendo  evan- 
gelio  calumniam  inde  instruere  ausi  fuerint." 

Such  is  the  apostle's  argument  against  the  grounds  of  con- 
fidence on  which  the  Jews  rested  their  hope  of  exemption  from 
condemnation.  'Our  unfaithfulness  serves  to  commend  the 
faithfulness  of  God,  therefore  we  ought  not  to  be  punished.' 
According  to  this  reasoning,  says  Paul,  the  worse  we  are,  the 
better ;  for  the  more  wicked  we  are,  the  more  conspicuous  will 
be  the  mercy  of  Grod  in  our  pardon ;  we  may  therefore  do  evil 
that  good  may  come.'  By  reducing  the  reasoning  of  the  Jews 
to  a  conclusion  shocking  to  the  moral  sense,  he  thereby  refutes 


116  ROMANS  III.  1—8. 

it.  The  apostle  often  thus  recognizes  the  authority  of  the 
intuitive  moral  judgments  of  our  nature,  and  thus  teaches  us 
that  those  truths  which  are  believed  on  their  own  evidence,  as 
soon  as  presented  to  the  mind,  should  be  regarded  as  fixed 
points  in  all  reasonings;  and  that  to  attempt  to  go  beyond 
these  intuitive  judgments,  is  to  unsettle  the  foundation  of  all 
faith  and  knowledge,  and  to  open  the  door  to  universal  skepti- 
cism. Any  doctrine,  therefore,  which  is  immoral  in  its  ten- 
dency, or  which  conflicts  with  the  first  principles  of  morals, 
must  be  false,  no  matter  how  plausible  may  be  the  arguments 
in  its  favour. 


DOCTRINE. 

1.  The  advantages  of  membership  in  the  external  Church, 
and  of  a  participation  of  its  ordinances,  are  very  numerous 
and  great,  vs.  1,  2. 

2.  The  great  advantage  of  the  Christian  over  the  heathen 
world,  and  of  the  members  of  a  visible  ecclesiastical  body  over 
others  not  so  situated,  is  the  greater  amount  of  divine  truth 
presepted  to  their  understandings  and  hearts,  ver.  2. 

3.  All  the  writings  which  the  Jews,  at  the  time  of  Christ 
and  his  apostles,  regarded  as  inspired,  are  really  the  word  of 
God,  ver.  2. 

4.  No  promise  or  covenant  of  God  can  ever  be  rightfully 
urged  in  favour  of  exemption  from  the  punishment  of  sin,  or 
of  impunity  to  those  who  live  in  it.  God  is  faithful  to  his 
promises,  but  he  never  promises  to  pardon  the  impenitently 
guilty,  vs.  3,  4. 

5.  God  will  make  the  wrath  of  men  to  praise  him.  Their 
unrighteousness  will  commend  his  righteousness,  without,  on 
that  account,  making  its  condemnation  less  certain  or  less 
severe,  vs.  5,  6. 

6.  Any  doctrine  inconsistent  with  the  first  principles  of 
morals  must  be  false,  no  matter  how  plausible  the  metaphysical 
argument  in  its  favour.  And  that  mode  of  reasoning  is  correct, 
which  refutes  such  doctrines  by  showing  their  inconsistency 
with  moral  truth,  ver.  8. 


ROMANS  III.  1—8.  ilT 


REMARKS. 

1.  We  should  feel  the  peculiar  responsibilities  which  rest 
upon  us  as  the  inhabitants  of  a  Christian  country,  as  members 
of  the  Christian  Church,  and  possessors  of  the  word  of  God ; 
as  such,  we  enjoy  advantages  for  which  we  shall  have  to  render 
a  strict  account,  vs.  1,  2. 

2.  It  is  a  mark  of  genuine  piety,  to  be  disposed  always 
to  justify  God,  and  to  condemn  ourselves.  On  the  other  hand, 
a  disposition  to  self-justification  and  the  extenuation  of  our 
sins,  however  secret,  is  an  indication  of  the  want  of  a  proper 
sense  of  our  own  unworthiness  and  of  the  divine  excellence, 
vs.  4,  5. 

3.  Beware  of  any  refuge  from  the  fear  of  future  punish- 
ment, founded  upon  the  hope  that  God  will  clear  the  guilty,  or 
that  he  will  not  judge  the  world  and  take  vengeance  for  our 
sins,  vs.  6,  7. 

4.  There  is  no  better  evidence  against  the  truth  of  any  doc- 
trine, than  that  its  tendency  is  immoral.  And  there  is  no 
greater  proof  that  a  man  is  Avicked,  that  his  condemnation  is 
just,  than  that  he  does  evil  that  good  may  come.  There  is 
commonly,  in  such  cases,  not  only  the  evil  of  the  act  com- 
mitted, but  that  of  hypocrisy  and  duplicity  also,  ver.  8. 

5.  Speculative  and  morai  truths,  which  are  believed  on  their 
own  evidence  as  soon  as  they  are  presented  to  the  mind, 
should  be  regarded  as  authoritative,  and  as  fixed  points  in  all 
reasonings.  When  men  deny  such  first  principles,  or  attempt 
to  push  beyond  them  to  a  deeper  foundation  of  truth,  there  is 
no  end  to  the  obscurity,  uncertainty,  and  absurdity  of  their 
speculations.  What  God  forces  us,  from  the  very  constitution 
of  our  nature,  to  believe,  as,  'for  example,  the  existence  of  the 
external  world,  our  own  personal  identity,  the  difference  be- 
tween good  and  evil,  &c.,  it  is  at  once  a  violation  of  his  will 
and  of  the  dictates  of  reason  to  deny  or  to  question.  Paul 
assumed,  as  an  ultimate  fact,  that  it  is  wrong  to  do  evil  that 
good  may  come,  ver.  8. 


118  ROMANS  III.  9. 


ROMANS  III.  9—20. 

ANALYSIS. 

The  apostle  having  demonstrated  that  the  Jews  cannot 
expect  exemption  from  condemnation,  on  the  ground  of  their 
being  the  peculiar  people  of  God,  except  on  principles  incom- 
patible with  the  government  of  the  world,  and  inconsistent 
with  the  plainest  moral  truths,  draws,  in  ver.  9,  the  conclusion, 
that  the  Jew,  as  to  the  matter  of  justification  before  God,  has 
no  preeminence  over  the  Gentile.  He  confirms  his  doctrine  of 
the  universal  sinfulness  of  men  by  numerous  quotations  from 
the  Scriptures.  These  passages  speak  of  men  in  general  as 
depraved,  vs.  10 — 12 ;  and  then  of  the  special  manifestations 
of  that  depravity  in  sins  of  the  tongue,  vs.  13,  14;  and  in  sins 
of  violence,  vs.  15 — 18.  The  inference  from  all  his  reasoning, 
from  chap.  i.  18,  derived  from  consciousness,  experience,  and 
Scripture  is,  that  "the  whole  world  is  guilty  before  God," 
ver.  19  ;  and  that  "  no  flesh  can  be  justified  by  the  deeds  of  the 
law,"  ver.  20. 

COMMENTAKY. 

Verse  9.  What  then?  do  we  excel?  What  then?  i.  e.  what 
is  the  conclusion  from  the  preceding  discussion?  are  we  Jews 
better  off"  than  the  Gentiles  ?  Wahl  points  the  passage  thus : 
Ti  ouu  Tzpoeyofxed^a;  Wliat  then  do  we,  or  can  we  pretend  07'  pre- 
sent as  an  excuse?  Then,  however,  as  RUckert  and  others 
remark,  the  answer  should  be,  oudev,  nothing,  and  not  ou 
Tzdvrax;.  The  principal  difficulty  in  this  verse  is  to  determine 
the  meaning  of  7:poeyo^e&a.  The  most  commonly  received  and 
the  most  satisfactory  explanation  assumes  that  the  middle  form 
has  here  the  sense  of  the  active.  Ilpoe^eiv  means  to  hold 
before,  or  intransitively  and  topically,  to  have  before  another,  to 
excel.  In  the  middle  voice,  the  verb  means  to  hold  before  one- 
self, as  a  shield,  or  figuratively,  to  use  as  a  pretext.  Though 
the  middle  does  not  elsewhere  occur  in  the  sense  of  the  active, 
its  use  in  the  present  instance  in  that  sense,  may  be  justified 


EOMANS  III.  9.  119 

either  by  the  remark,  that  the  later  writers  often  use  the  middle 
form  where  the  earlier  authors  employ  the  active,  ( Tholuch);  or 
by  assuming  the  sense  of  the  active  to  be  here  somewhat  modi- 
fied, since  the  apostle  is  speaking  of  a  superiority  which  the 
Jews  attributed  to  themselves,  so  that  the  strict  sense  is: 
"Licetne  nobis  tribuere  majorem  dignitatem?"  Bretschneider. 
The  context  suits  the  sense  commonly  attributed  to  the  word. 
The  whole  discussion  has  brought  the  apostle  to  the  conclusion, 
that  the  Jews  as  sinners  have  no  advantage  over  the  Gentiles, 
and  this  is  the  conclusion  which  he  here  confirms.  If  the 
middle  force  of  the  verb  be  retained,  then  the  sense  is,  as  given 
by  Meyer:  'What  then?  Have  we  protection  or  defence?' 
That  is,  are  we  Jews  and  Gentiles,  men  as  sinners,  protected 
from  the  justice  of  God  ?  The  answer  is.  By  no  means.  But 
this  does  not  so  well  suit  the  context  or  the  form  of  the  answer 
to  the  question  presented.  The  verb  izpozyoyLzd^a  should,  as 
Riickert  says,  in  that  case  have  an  accusative,  designating  the 
excuse  or  pretext:  'Have  we  amjthing  for  a  pretext?'  And  the 
answer  would  be,  Nothing.  The  passive  sense,  Are  we  excelled  ? 
adopted  by  Wetstein  and  others,  is  still  less  suited  to  the  con- 
text. For  whether  the  Gentiles  or  the  Jews  be  supposed  to  ask 
the  question,  there  is  nothing  to  account  for  it,  or  to  suggest  it. 
Paul  had  given  no  reason  to  either  to  ask.  Are  we  excelled? 
He  had  not  proved  that  the  Gentiles  were  worse  oflF  than  the 
Jews,  or  the  Jews  than  the  Gentiles,  but  that  both  were  alike 
under  condemnation.  The  question,  therefore,  Do  we  excel? 
are  we  Jews  better  off  than  the  Gentiles  ?  is  the  only  one  which 
the  occasion  calls  for,  or  that  the  answer  suits.  This  is  the  view 
given  by  Theophylact,  who  says,  ddxvvac  fxr^dhv  aorohz  lyztv 
Tizptaaov^  oaov  ix  xtov  ocxslcou  Ttpd^ewv;  and  which  is  adopted  by 
Calvin,  Beza,  Grotius,  and  the  modern  commentators,  Tholuck, 
Riickert  (2d  edition,)  Reiche,  and  De  Wette. 

Not  at  all,  not  in  the  least,  {oh  ^ravrwc,)  the  Tiduvcv^  strength- 
ening the  negation.  Grotius,  Wetstein,  and  Kollner  translate, 
not  altogether,  not  in  all  respects.  But  the  former  version  is 
shown  by  Winer,  §  65,  to  be  consistent  with  usage,  and  is  much 
better  suited  to  the  context ;  for  it  is  the  obvious  design  of  the 
apostle  to  show  that,  as  to  the  point  in  hand,  the  Jews  did  not 
at  all  excel  the  Gentiles.     This  strong  negation  the  following 


120  ROMANS  III.  10. 

clause  confirms.  The  Jews  are  not  better  off;  for  we  have 
before  charged  both  Jews  and  G-entiles  ivith  being  under  sin. 
Aiztaad^ai  is  properly,  to  accuse^  here  as  in  other  cases  followed 
by  an  accusative  and  infinitive.  Our  version,  we  have  before 
-proved^  though  it  may  be  justified  by  implication,  is  not  in 
strict  accordance  with  the  meaning  of  the  words.  The  same 
sense,  however,  is  expressed  by  Erasmus,  "  ante  causis  redditis 
ostendimus,"  and  is  adopted  by  Reiche  and  others.  There  is 
force  in  the  remark  of  Calvin:  "Verbum  Grsecum  ahida&cu 
proprie  est  judiciale:  ideoque  reddere  placuit  constituimus. 
Dicitur  enira  crimen  in  actione  constituere  accusator,  quod 
testimoniis  ac  probationibus  aliis  convincere  paratus.  Citavit 
autem  apostolus  universum  hominum  genus  ad  Dei  tribunal,  ut 
totum  sub  unam  damnationem  includeret."  To  be  under  sin 
means  to  be  under  the  power  of  sin,  to  be  sinners :  whether  the 
idea  of  guilt,  just  exposure  to  condemnation,  or  of  pollution,  or 
both,  be  conveyed  by  the  expression  depends  on  the  context. 
Comp.  1  Cor.  XV.  17,  Gal.  iii.  10,  22,  John  xv.  22.  Here  both 
ideas  are  to  be  included.  Paul  had  arraigned  all  men  as  sin- 
ners, as  the  transgressors  of  the  law,  and  therefore  exposed  to 
condemnation. 

Verses  10 — 18,  contain  the  confirmation  of  the  doctrine  of 
the  universal  sinfulness  of  men  by  the  testimony  of  the  Scrip- 
tures. These  passages  are  not  found  consecutively  in  any  one 
place  in  the  Old  Testament.  Verses  10 — 12  are  from  Psalms 
xiv.  and  liii.;  ver.  13  is  from  Ps.  v.  10 ;  ver.  14  is  from  Ps.  x.  7; 
vs.  15 — 17  are  from  Isa.  lix.  7,  8;  and  ver.  18  is  from  Ps. 
xxxvi.  1.  These  passages,  it  will  be  observed,  are  of  two 
different  classes ;  the  one  descriptive  of  the  general  character 
of  men;  the  other  referring  to  particular  sinful  acts,  on  the 
principle,  "by  their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them."  This  method 
of  reasoning  is  common  and  legitimate.  The  national  character 
of  a  people  may  be  proved  by  the  prevalence  of  certain  acts  by 
which  it  is  manifested.  The  prevalence  of  crime  among  men  is 
a  legitimate  proof  that  the  race  is  apostate,  though  every  man 
is  not  a  shedder  of  blood,  or  guilty  of  robbery  or  violence. 

Verse  10.  There  is  none  righteous,  no  not  one.  Ps.  xiv.  1, 
in  the  Hebrew  is,  "there  is  none  doing  good;"  in  the  Septua- 
gint  it  is,  Ttomv  y^pr^axbxr^xa;  Paul  has,  obit,  eari  dcxoio^,  there  is 


ROMANS  III.  11,  12.  121 

none  rigJiteous.  The  sense  is  the  same.  Paul  probably  uses 
dixaco<i,  righteous,  because  the  question  which  he  is  discuss- 
ing is,  whether  men  are  righteous,  or  can  be  justified  on  the 
ground  of  their  own  righteousness  in  the  sight  of  God.  This  is 
a  declaration  of  the  universal  sinfulness  of  men.  The  two  ideas 
included  in  the  negation  of  righteousness,  want  of  piety  and 
want  of  rectitude,  are  expressed  in  the  following  verses. 

Verse  11.  There  is  none  who  understands,  there  is  none,  ivho 
seeks  after  Gfod.  In  the  Psalms  it  is  said :  "  God  looked  down 
from  heaven  upon  the  sons  of  men,  to  see  if  there  was  one  wise, 
seeking  after  God."  Here  again  the  apostle  gives  the  thought, 
and  not  the  precise  words.  Instead  of  "if  there  was  one  wise," 
he  gives  the  idea  in  a  negative  form,  "  There  is  none  who  under- 
stands," oux  iffu  6  aovmv.  The  participle  6  aovciov,  der  ver- 
stdndige,  the  wise,  is  stronger  than  the  verb,  who  understands; 
as  the  former  expresses  a  permanent  characteristic,  the  latter 
properly  only  an  act.  The  words  (tuvctj/ju  and  trtivea^c  are  fre- 
quently used  in  the  New  Testament  to  express  the  right  appre- 
hension of  divine  truth.  See  Matt.  xiii.  15,  Acts  vii.  25,  Eph. 
iii.  4,  V.  17,  Col.  i.  9,  ii.  2.  In  this  case,  auvtwv  {auv'uov, 
Winer,  14,  §  3,)  answers  to  b'^aiu^a,  a  word  often  used  in  a 
religious  sense,  as  in  the  Scriptures,  wisdom  and  religion  are 
convertible  terms.  This  right  apprehension  or  spiritual  discern- 
ment of  divine  things  is  always  attended  with  right  affections 
and  right  conduct — he  that  understands  seeks  after  God — 
which  latter  expression  includes  all  those  exercises  of  desire, 
worship,  and  obedience,  which  are  consequent  on  this  spiritual 
discernment. 

Verse  12.  They  are  all  gone  out  of  the  way.  Blinded  by 
sin  to  the  perfections  and  loveliness  of  God  and  truth,  they 
have  turned  from  the  way  which  he  has  prescribed  and  which 
leads  to  himself,  and  have  made  choice  of  another  way  and  of 
another  portion.  Here,  as  in  the  first  chapter,  the  loss  of  the 
knowledge  of  God  is  represented  as  followed  by  spiritual  blind- 
ness, and  spiritual  blindness  by  moral  degradation.  Men  do 
not  understand,  i.  e.  have  no  right  apprehension  of  God ;  then 
they  turn  away  from  him,  then  they  become  altogether  unprofit- 
able, y^y^^tzuod^riaav,  worthless,  morally  corrupt.  This  depravity  is 
universal,  for  there  is  none  that  doeth  good,  no  not  one.     The 


122  ROMANS  III.  13— IT. 

words  oux  soDZ  Ivof,  not  so  much  as  owe,  are  a  Hebrewism  for 
ouoh  £?c-  This  passage  is  taken  from  the  Septuagint  transla- 
tion of  Psalm  xiv.  3. 

Verses  13, 14.  These  verses  relate  to  the  sins  of  the  tongue. 
The  passages  quoted  are  from  Ps.  v.  9,  cxl.  3,  and  x.  7.  Their 
throat  is  an  open  sepulchre.  The  point  of  comparison  may  be 
the  offensive  and  pestiferous  character  of  the  exhalations  of  an 
open  grave.  This  is  forcible,  and  suited  to  the  context.  Or  the 
idea  is,  that  as  the  grave  is  rapacious  and  insatiable,  so  the 
wicked  are  disposed  to  do  all  the  injury  with  their  tongues 
which  they  can  accomplish.  In  Jer.  v.  16,  it  is  said  of  the 
Chaldeans,  "Their  quiver  is  an  open  sepulchre,"  i.  e.  destruc- 
tive. But  as  in  the  following  verses  sins  of  violence  are  brought 
distinctly  into  view,  the  former  explanation  is  to  be  preferred. 
What  issues  from  the  mouths  of  the  wicked  is  offensive  and 
pestiferous.  With  their  tongues  they  have  used  deceit.  The 
word  kooXcouaav  is  in  the  imperfect,  for  idoXioup,  implying  con- 
tinuous action.  In  the  Hebrew  it  is,  "  They  make  smooth  their 
tongue,"  i.  e.  they  flatter.  The  LXX.  and  Vulgate  give  the 
version  which  the  apostle  adopts.  The  poison  of  asps  is  under 
their  lips.  This  is  the  highest  expression  of  malignity.  The 
bite  of  the  adder  causes  the  severest  pain,  as  well  as  produces 
death.  To  inflict  suffering  is  a  delight  to  the  malignant.  This 
is  a  revelation  of  a  nature  truly  diabolical.  Their  mouth  is  full 
of  cursing  and  bitterness.  The  Hebrew  in  Ps.  x.  7,  is,  "  His 
mouth  is  full  of  deceit  and  violence;"  the  Septuagint,  "His 
mouth  is  full  of  cursing,  bitterness,  and  deceit."  The  Vulgate 
follows  the  LXX.;  Paul  condenses  the  idea. 

Verses  15 — 17.  These  verses  adduce  the  sins  of  violence 
common  among  men,  in  proof  of  the  general  depravity  of  the 
race.  Their  feet  are  swift  to  shed  blood.  That  is,  on  the 
slightest  provocation  they  commit  murder.  The  life  of  their 
fellow-men  is  as  nothing  in  their  estimation,  in  comparison  with 
the  gratification  of  their  pride  or  malice.  The  words  are  quoted 
from  Isa.  lix.  7:  "  Their  feet  run  to  evil,  and  they  make  haste 
to  shed  innocent  blood."  Here  the  Septuagint  agrees  with  the 
Hebrew,  and  Paul  again  condenses  the  sense.  Destruction  and 
misery  are  in  their  ways.  Their  path  through  life  is  marked 
not  only  with  blood,  but  with  the  ruin  and  desolation  which 


ROMANS  III.  18,  19.  123 

they  spread  around  them.  In  Isaiah  the  passage  runs,  "  Their 
thoughts  are  thoughts  of  iniquity ;  wasting  and  destruction  are 
in  their  paths."  The  way  of  peace  they  have  not  known.  "The 
way  of  peace"  is  the  way  that  leads  to  peace,  or  pacific  ways. 
"They  have  not  known,"  means  they  have  not  approved  or  fre- 
quented. The  idea  is  to  be  taken  in  its  most  comprehensive 
form,  as  the  apostle  designs  to  prove,  not  from  any  specific 
form  of  violence,  but  from  the  general  prevalence  of  sins  of 
violence  among  men,  that  human  nature  is  depraved.  The  tree 
which  produces  such  fruit  so  abundantly  must  be  evil. 

Verse  18.  There  is  no  fear  of  G-od  before  their  eyes.  This 
is  taken  from  Psalm  xxxvi.  1:  "The  dictum  of  depravity  con- 
cerning the  wicked  man  in  my  heart  is.  There  is  no  fear  of  God 
before  his  eyes."  That  is,  his  depravity  proves  or  reveals  to 
me  that  he  does  not  fear  God.  See  Alexander  on  the  Psalms, 
who  proposes  this  with  other  versions  of  the  passage.  However 
the  previous  part  of  the  verse  may  be  understood,  the  clause 
quoted  by  the  apostle  is  plain.  The  course  of  wicked  men,  as 
previously  described,  is  proof  that  they  are  destitute  of  the  fear 
of  God.  And  by  "the  fear  of  God,"  we  may  understand,  accord- 
ing to  Scripture  usage,  reverence  for  God,  piety  towards  him ;  or 
fear,*in  the  more  restricted  sense,  dread  of  his  wrath.  In  either 
way,  the  reckless  wickedness  of  men  proves  that  they  are  desti- 
tute of  all  proper  regard  of  God.  They  act  as  if  there  were  no 
God,  no  Being  to  whom  they  are  responsible  for  their  conduct, 
and  who  has  the  purpose  and  power  to  punish  them  for  their 
iniquity. 

Verse  19.  Now  we  know;  it  is  a  thing  plain  in  itself,  and 
universally  conceded,  that  what  things  soever  the  law  saith,  it 
saith  to  them  that  are  under  the  law.  The  word  vofjio^  means 
that  which  binds,  that  to  which  we  are  bound  to  be  conformed. 
It  is  that  which  binds  the  reason,  the  conscience,  the  heart,  and 
the  life,  whether  it  be  revealed  in  the  constitution  of  our  nature, 
or  in  the  decalogue,  or  in  the  law  of  Moses,  or  in  the  Scrip- 
tures. It  is  the  word  or  revelation  of  the  will  of  God,  consi- 
sidered  as  the  norm  or  rule  to  which  men  are  to  conform  their 
faith  and  practice.  It  depends  on  the  context,  under  what 
aspect  this  rule  is  in  any  particular  case  contemplated.  It  may 
be  the  rule  as  written  on  the  heart,  ii.  14,  or  the  law  of  Moses, 


124  ROMANS  III.  19. 

or  the  whole  Scriptures,  as  John  x.  34.  In  this  passage  it  obvi- 
ously means  the  whole  Old  Testament,  for  the  quotations  given 
above  are  taken  from  the  Psalms  and  the  Prophets.  In  every 
instance  the  principle  applies,  that  what  the  law  says,  it  says  to 
those  who  have  the  law.  Those  to  whom  any  revelation  of  the 
divine  will  is  made,  are  bound  to  be  conformed  to  it.  What  the 
law  written  in  the  heart  says,  it  says  to  those  who  have  that 
law ;  and  what  the  law  as  written  in  the  Scriptures  says,  it  says 
to  those  who  have  the  Scriptures.  The  declarations  therefore 
contained  in  the  Old  Testament,  which  was  the  revelation  of 
God's  will  made  to  the  Jews,  were  the  norm  or  I'ule  to  which 
they  were  obliged  to  conform  their  judgments  and  conduct.  If 
the  Old  Testament  declared  that  all  men  are  under  sin,  that 
there  is  none  righteous,  no  not  one,  the  Jews  could  not  deny  the 
truth  of  this  universal  declaration  in  its  application  to  them- 
selves. These  passages  speak  not  of  heathen  as  heathen,  but 
of  fallen  men  as  such,  and  therefore  are  to  be  understood  of  all 
men,  of  the  Jews  as  well  as  of  the  Gentiles.  That  every  mouth 
may  he  stopped.  The  word  is  Tva,  in  order  that.  That  is,  the 
design  of  God  in  these  general  declarations  was,  that  every 
mouth  should  be  stopped ;  that  all  men  should  be  reduced  to 
silence  under  the  conviction  that  they  had  nothing  to  say  agfinst 
the  charge  of  sin.  This  idea  is  expressed  in  another  form  in  the 
following  clause :  That  the  whole  loorld  {rzaz  6  xoafioc;^)  all  man- 
kind, Jews  and  Gentiles,  should  become  (yevr^zai,)  in  their  own 
conviction,  guilty  before  Grod.  That  is,  that  all  men  should  be 
convinced  of  guilt.  Guilt,  here,  as  always  in  theological  lan- 
guage, means  liability  or  exposure  to  punishment  on  account 
of  sin.  It  is  not  to  be  confounded  either  with  moral  pollution, 
or  with  mere  demerit.  It  may  exist  where  neither  pollution  nor 
personal  demerit  is  to  be  found.  And  it  may  be  removed  where 
both  remain.  Christ  is  said  to  have  borne  the  guilt  of  our  sins, 
although  immaculate  and  without  personal  demerit ;  and  justifi- 
cation removes  the  guilt  (or  just  exposure  to  punishment)  of  the 
sinner,  but  it  does  not  change  his  inward  character.  This  is 
the  proper  meaning  of  bnodexo^  {^voyo^  ^(xt^C,)  guilty,  satisf ac- 
tionem alteri  debens,  obnoxious  to  punishment.  Before  Grod^ 
Tw  dsw,  in  relation  to  God,  as  it  is  to  him  that  satisfaction  for 
sin  is  due.     It  is  he  whom  we  have  offended,  and  under  whose 


ROMANS  III.  20.  125 

sentence  we  lie.  There  are  three  things  involved  in  the  con- 
sciousness of  sin ;  sense  of  moral  turpitude,  sense  of  demerit  or 
of  ill-desert,  and  the  conviction  that  we  ought  to  be  punished. 
This  last  element  is  often  the  most  clearly  revealed ;  so  that  a 
criminal  often  voluntarily  gives  himself  up  to  justice.  It  is  this 
that  is  denominated  guilt,  the  obligation  to  suffer  punishment; 
so  that  the  guilty  are  not  merely  those  who  may  be  punished, 
but  those  who  justice  (or  moral  rectitude)  demands  should  be 
punished.  It  is  this  that  stops  the  sinner's  mouth ;  and  it  is 
this  which  is  met  by  satisfaction,  so  that  although  in  the  justi- 
fied believer  a  sense  of  pollution  and  of  ill-desert  remains,  there 
is  no  longer  this  dreadful  conviction  that  God  is  bound  to 
punish  him.  The  conclusion  to  which  the  apostle's  argument, 
from  experience  and  Scripture,  has  thus  far  led  is,  that  all  men 
are  guilty  in  the  sight  of  God ;  and  if  guilty,  they  cannot  be 
justified  on  the  ground  of  their  personal  character  or  conduct. 
To  justify  is  to  declare  not  guilty;  and  therefore  the  guilty 
cannot,  on  the  ground  of  character,  be  justified. 

Verse  20.  Therefore  by  the  deeds  of  the  law  shall  no  flesh 
he  justified  in  his  sight.  Therefore.  The  particle  is  dcozc^  which 
is  equivalent  to  dt  b  tc,  on  account  of  which  thing,  wherefore. 
In  this  sense  it  indicates  a  conclusion  from  preceding  premises. 
This  would  suit  this  connection,  as  ver.  20  is  a  fair  conclusion 
from  what  is  said  in  ver.  19 :  'All  the  world  is  guilty  before 
God,  wherefore,  hence  it  follows  that,  no  one  can  be  justified  by 
works.'  This  is  the  conclusion  which  the  apostle  has  had  in 
view  from  the  beginning  of  his  argument.  His  whole  design  is 
to  prove  that  men  cannot  be  justified  by  their  own  righteous- 
ness, in  order  to  prepare  them  to  receive  the  righteousness  of 
God.  This  view  of  the  connection  is  assumed  in  our  version, 
by  Beza,  Turrettin,  Rosemmiiller,  and  others.  But  in  the  New 
Testament,  dcore  is  almost  uniformly,  perhaps  in  every  case, 
used  in  the  sense  of  ded  touto  ore,  on  this  account  that,  or  of  the 
simple  ore,  that.  The  great  majority  of  commentators  there- 
fore render  it  here,  because,  as  in  i.  19,  viii.  7,  &c.  Verse  20 
then  assigns  the  reason  of  what  is  said  in  ver.  19:  'Every 
mouth  must  be  stopped,  because  no  flesh  can  be  justified  by 
works.'  This  view  is  to  be  preferred,  not  because  more  suita- 
ble, but  because  more  consistent  with  the  common  use  of  the 


126  ROMANS  III.  20. 

particle  in  question.  No  flesh.  When  men  are  called  flesh.,  in 
the  Bible,  there  was  originally  a  reference  to  their  weakness 
and  faults,  as  the  flesh  is  earthly  and  perishable.  But  in  many 
cases  there  is  no  such  implication;  "no  flesh"  is  simply  equiva- 
lent to  no  man.  The  Greek  is  here  Ttaaa  aap^  ob  x.r.X,  every 
flesh  shall  not;  according  to  the  familiar  Hebraism,  no  flesh 
shall.  The  future  is  used  not  in  reference  to  the  day  of  final 
judgment,  for  the  act  of  justification  takes  place  in  this  life. 
It  expresses  the  certainty  of  the  thing  afiirmed :  No  flesh  shall 
ever  be  (i.  e.  ever  can  be)  justified.  The  apostle  seems  evi- 
dently to  have  had  in  his  mind  the  passage  in  Psalm  cxliii.  2 : 
"Enter  not  into  judgment  with  thy  servant;  for  in  thy  sight 
shall  no  man  living  be  justified."  Acxacoo),  to  justify,  is  not 
simply  to  pardon.  A  condemned  criminal,  in  whose  favour  the 
executive  exercises  his  prerogative  of  mercy,  is  never  said  to  be 
justified;  he  is  simply  pardoned.  Nor  is  it  to  pardon  and  to 
restore  to  favour.  When  a  king  pardons  a  rebellious  subject, 
and  restores  him  to  his  former  standing,  he  does  not  justify 
him.  Nor  is  it  to  make  just  inwardly.  When  a  man  accused 
of  a  crime  is  acquitted  or  declared  just  in  the  eye  of  the  law, 
his  moral  character  is  not  changed.  To  justify  is  a  forensic 
term ;  that  is,  it  expresses  the  act  of  a  judge.  Justification  is 
a  judicial  act.  It  is  a  declaration  that  the  party  arraigned  is 
dixaiot;,  just;  and  dixatoQ  means  right,  conformed  to  the  law. 
To  justify,  therefore,  is  to  declare  that  the  party  implicated  is 
rectus  in  foro  judicii;  that  dixrj,  justice,  does  not  condemn,  but 
pronounces  him  just,  or  declares  herself  satisfied.  This  is  the 
uniform  meaning  of  the  word,  not  only  in  Scripture,  but  also 
in  ordinary  life.  We  never  confound  justification  with  pardon, 
or  with  sanctification.  It  is  always  used  in  the  sense  antithe- 
tical to  condemnation.  To  condemn  is  not  merely  to  punish, 
but  to  declare  the  accused  guilty  or  worthy  of  punishment ;  and 
justification  is  not  merely  to  remit  that  punishment,  but  to 
declare  that  punishment  cannot  be  justly  inflicted.  Much  less 
does  to  condemn  mean  to  render  wicked,  and  therefore  neither 
does  to  justify  mean  to  render  good.  When  we  justify  God,  we 
declare  him  to  be  just ;  and  when  God  justifies  the  sinner,  he 
declares  him  to  be  just.  In  both  cases  the  idea  is,  that  there 
is  no  ground  for  condemnation ;  or  that  the  demands  of  justice 


ROMANS  III.  20.  127 

are  satisfied.  Hence  the  terms  and  expressions  used  in  Scrip- 
ture, convertibly  with  the  word  to  justify,  all  express  the  same 
idea.  Thus,  in  ii.  13,  it  is  said:  "Not  the  hearers  of  the  law 
are  just  before  God  {dcxaioc  rrapa  T(p  dtiji,)  but  the  doers  of 
the  law  shall  be  justified  {dcxatco^-^aovrai.")  Here,  to  be  just 
before  God,  (in  his  sight  or  estimation,)  and  to  be  justified, 
mean  the  same  thing.  It  is  clearly  impossible  that  the  apostle 
should  mean  that  the  doers  of  the  law  shall  be  pardoned.  What 
should  they  be  pardoned  for  ?  Doing  the  law  does  not  call  for 
pardon:  it  is  declared  to  be  the  ground  of  justification.  Pardon 
and  justification  therefore  are  essentially  distinct.  The  one  is 
the  remission  of  punishment,  the  other  is  a  declaration  that  no 
ground  for  the  infliction  of  punishment  exists.  Quite  as  evident 
is  it  that  the  apostle  does  not  mean,  in  the  passage  referred  to, 
to  say  that  the  doers  of  the  law  shall  be  made  holy.  To  justify, 
therefore,  cannot  mean  to  make  inherently  just  or  good.  In 
iv.  6,  he  speaks  of  the  "blessedness  of  the  man  to  whom  the 
Lord  imputeth  righteousness  without  works."  To  impute  right- 
eousness is  to  justify.  To  impute  is  to  ascribe  to,  to  reckon  to 
one's  account.  But  when  we  pardon  a  man,  we  do  not  ascribe 
righteousness  to  him ;  and  therefore,  again,  justification  is  seen 
to  be  difierent  from  pardon.  It  is  quite  as  clear,  that  to  impute 
righteousness  cannot  mean  to  render  holy;  and  therefore  to 
justify,  which  is  to  impute  righteousness,  cannot  mean  to  make 
good.  In  viii.  1,  the  apostle  says,  "there  is  no  condemnation 
to  those  who  are  in  Christ  Jesus."  Not  to  condemn  is  neither 
to  pardon  nor  to  sanctify,  but  it  is  to  pronounce  just.  Nothing 
can  be  clearer  as  a  question  of  exegesis,  than  that  the  word 
dexacoco  (to  justify)  expresses  a  judicial,  as  opposed  to  an  execu- 
tive, and  also  to  an  efficient  act.  This  indeed  is  plain  from  the 
very  form  of  the  statement  in  this  and  other  passages.  It 
would  be  utterly  unmeaning  to  say  that  "no  flesh  shall  be  par- 
doned by  the  works  of  the  law,"  or  that  "no  man  shall  be  sanc- 
tified by  the  deeds  of  the  law."  In  the  fifth  chapter  of  this 
epistle,  Paul  uses  the  phrase  "sentence  unto  condemnation 
[xpifjLa  £C(;  xardxpifia,")  in  antithesis  to  "sentence  unto  justifi- 
cation {xpifxa  e/c  dixaccucrcv.")  Justification  therefore  is  as  much 
a  sentence,  a  xplfia,  a  judgment,  a  declarative  act,  as  condemna- 
tion.    It  need  not  be  remarked  that  this  is  a  point  of  vital 


128  ROMANS  III.  20. 

importance.  How  can  man  be  just  with  God?  is  the  question 
which  of  all  others  most  immediately  concerns  our  eternal 
interests.  The  answer  which  Pelagians  and  Remonstrants  give 
to  this  question  is,  that  to  justify  is  simply  to  pardon  and  to 
restore  to  divine  favour.  The  Romanists  say,  that  it  is  to 
render  inwardly  pure  or  good,  so  that  God  accepts  as  right- 
eous only  those  who  are  inwardly  conformed  to  the  law,  and 
because  of  that  conformity.  Protestants  say,  that  to  justify  is 
to  declare  just ;  to  pronounce,  on  the  ground  of  the  satisfaction 
of  justice,  that  there  is  no  ground  of  condemnation  in  the 
sinner ;  or  that  he  has  a  righteousness  which  meets  the  demands 
of  the  law.  The  Romish  doctrine  of  subjective  justification, 
against  which  the  Protestants  contended  as  for  the  life  of  the 
Church,  has  in  our  day  been  revived  in  different  forms.  The 
speculative  and  mystic  theologians  of  Germany  all  repudiate 
the  doctrine  of  objective  justification ;  they  all  teach  in  some 
way,  that  to  justify  is  to  make  just;  to  restore  the  ruined 
nature  of  man  to  its  original  state  of  purity  or  conformity  to 
the  law  of  God.  They  are  all  disposed  to  say,  with  Olshausen : 
"Von  Gott  kann  nie  etwas  als  gerecht  anerkannt  oder  dafUr 
erklart  werden,  was  es  nicht  ist;"  i.  e.  Crod  can  never  acknow^ 
ledge  or  declare  that  just,  which  is  not  so  in  itself.  This  is  said 
to  prove  that  God  cannot  pronounce  the  sinner  just,  unless  he  is 
inherently  righteous.  If  this  is  so,  then  no  flesh  living  can  be 
justified;  for  no  human  being  in  this  life,  whether  under  the  law 
or  the  gospel,  is  inherently  just,  or  inwardly  conformed  to  the 
law  of  God.  The  conscience  of  the  holiest  man  on  earth  con- 
demns him,  and  God  is  greater  than  our  hearts,  and  knoweth  all 
things.  If  not  righteous  in  our  own  eyes,  how  can  we  be  right- 
eous in  the  sight  of  omniscient  and  infinite  holiness  ?  Agreea- 
bly to  the  principle  just  stated,  Olshausen  defines  dexcuocrwi^, 
conformity  to  law,  so  that  "not  only  the  outward  act,  but  the 
inward  feeling  and  disposition  answer  to  the  divine  law;"  and 
dcxacoM  is  said  to  express  "die  gottliche  Thatigkeit  des  Her- 
vorrufens  der  dcxacoaovrj,  welches  natUrlich  das  Anerkennen 
derselben  als  solcher  in  sich  schliesst."  That  is,  to  justify  is  to 
produce  moral  rectitude,  and  to  acknowledge  it  as  such.  See 
Olshausen  s  Commentary,  Rom.  iii.  21.  Justification  therefore 
includes  two  things ;  first,  making  a  man  inwardly  just ;  and 


ROMANS  III.  20.  129 

secondly,  acknowledging  him  to  be  so.  No  man  therefore  can 
be  justified  who  is  not  inwardly  conformed  to  the  perfect  law 
of  God.  This  is  a  sentence  of  eternal  condemnation  on  all 
mankind ;  for  there  is  none  righteous,  no  not  one ;  neither  by 
works  nor  by  faith,  neither  by  nature  nor  by  grace.  Blessed 
be  God,  this  is  not  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible.  God  justifies  the 
ungodly;  that  is,  he  pronounces  just,  those  who,  personally  con- 
sidered, are  unjust.  He  imputes  righteousness  to  those  without 
Works ;  that  is,  to  those  who  are  in  themselves  unrighteous.  In 
no  instance  in  the  Scriptures  has  dcxaioo)  the  sense  of  producing 
dcxcuoaovYj.  We  do  not  make  God  holy  when  we  justify  him ; 
the  unrighteous  judge  does  not  make  the  wicked  holy  when  he 
justifies  him  for  a  reward,  Isa.  v.  23.  He  surely  is  not  an 
abomination  to  the  Lord,  who  makes  the  unrighteous  good,  but 
he  is  declared  to  be  such  an  abomination,  who  either  justifies  the 
wicked  or  condemns  the  just,  Prov.  xvii.  15.  This  doctrine  is 
not  less  inconsistent  with  the  faith  of  the  Church,  than  it  is 
with  the  plain  meaning  of  the  Scriptures.  The  people  of  God 
of  every  denomination  are  led  as  by  instinct  to  renounce  all 
dependence  upon  anything  done  by  them  or  wrought  in  them, 
and  to  cast  themselves,  for  acceptance  before  God,  on  what 
Christ  has  done  for  them.  Their  trust  is  in  him,  and  not  on 
their  own  inward  conformity  to  the  law.  No  previous  training, 
and  no  trammels  of  false  doctrine  can  prevent  those  who  are 
truly  under  the  guidance  of  the  Spirit  of  God  from  thus 
renouncing  their  own  inward  righteousness,  and  trusting  to  the 
righteousness  of  the  Son  of  God. 

To  justify  then  is  not  merely  to  pardon  and  restore  to  favour ; 
nor  is  it  to  make  inwardly  just  or  holy,  but  it  is  to  declare  or 
pronounce  just;  that  is,  judicially  to  declare  that  the  demands 
of  justice  are  satisfied,  or  that  there  is  no  just  ground  for  con- 
demnation. The  apostle  here  as  everj^where  teaches  that  no 
human  being  can  be  thus  pronounced  just,  on  the  ground  of  his 
personal  character  or  conduct,  because  all  have  sinned  and  are 
guilty  before  God.  This  is  here  expressed  by  saying,  that  no 
flesh  can  be  justified  by  works  of  the  law.  By  works  of  the  law 
are  not  meant  works  produced  or  called  forth  by  the  law  as  a 
mere  objective  rule  of  duty,  as  opposed  to  works  produced  by  an 
inward  principle  of  faith,  but  works  which  the  law  prescribes. 
9 


130  KOMANS  III.  20. 

It  is  not  by  obedience  to  the  law,  by  doing  the  works  whicli  the 
law  enjoins,  that  any  man  can  be  justified.  As  to  the  nature 
of  the  works  which  are  thus  expressly  declared  not  to  be  the 
ground  of  justification,  there  are  different  opinions  arising  out 
of  the  difierent  views  taken  of  the  plan  of  salvation  revealed 
in  the  Scriptures.  1.  The  Pelagian  doctrine,  that  the  works 
intended  are  the  ceremonial  works  prescribed  by  the  Mosaic 
law.  The  doctrine  assumed  to  be  taught  by  the  apostle  is,  that 
men  are  not  justified  by  any  external  rites,  such  as  circumcision 
and  sacrifice,  but  by  works  morally  good.  2.  The  Romish 
doctrine,  that  the  works  of  the  law  are  works  performed  under 
the  stress  of  natural  conscience.  The  Romish  theory  is,  that 
works  done  before  regeneration  have  only  the  merit  of  con- 
gruity ;  but  those  done  after  regeneration,  and  therefore  from  a 
principle  of  grace,  have  the  merit  of  condignity,  and  are  the 
ground  of  acceptance  with  God.  3.  The  Remonstrant  or 
Arminian  doctrine  is,  that  by  the  works  of  the  law  is  to  be 
understood  the  perfect  legal  obedience  enjoined  on  Adam  as 
the  condition  of  eternal  life.  Under  the  gospel,  such  perfect 
obedience  is  not  required,  God  for  Christ's  sake  being  willing 
to  accept  of  imperfect  obedience.  Men  therefore  are  not  justi- 
fied by  the  works  of  the  law,  but  by  the  works  of  the  gospel, 
which  requires  only  a  fides  ohsequiosa.  4.  The  modern  doc- 
trine already  referred  to  is  only  a  philosophical  statement  of 
the  Romish  theory.  Olshausen,  Neander,  and  the  school  to 
which  they  belong,  teach  that  the  law  as  an  objective  rule  of 
duty  cannot  produce  real  inward  conformity  to  the  will  of  God, 
but  only  an  outward  obedience,  and  therefore  there  is  need  of  a 
new  inward  principle  which  produces  true  holiness  in  heart  and 
life.  "Das  Gesetz,"  says  Olshausen,  "konnte  es  nicht  iiber 
eine  aussere  Legalitat  hinausbringen,  durch  die  Wiedergeburt 
wird  aber  durch  Gnade  ein  innerer  Zustand,  die  dixaioauui^  deou, 
im  Glaiibigen  geschafien,  der  den  hochsten  Forderungen  ent- 
spricht;"  (see  his  Comment,  on  i.  17.)  "The  law  can  only 
effect  an  external  legal  obedience;  but  by  regeneration,  an 
inward  state,  the  dcxacoaovrj  Oeou,  is  produced  by  grace,  which 
meets  the  highest  demands."  The  works  of  the  law,  therefore, 
according  to  this  view,  the  dixaioauvvj  rod  vofxou,  or  Ix  vofioo,  or 
dcxaxoauvTj  idea,   are  those  works  or  that  righteousness  which 


ROMANS  III.  20.  131 

men  by  their  own  power,  without  the  cooperation  of  divine 
grace,  can  effect;  ("der  Mensch  sie  gleichsam  mit  seinen 
eignen,  nach  dem  Fall  ihm  gebliebenen  sittlichen  Kraften,  ohne 
Wirkung  der  Gnade,  zu  Stande  bringt.")  Such  works  or  such 
righteousness  cannot  justify;  but  the  inward  righteousness  pro- 
duced by  the  grace  of  God,  and  therefore  called  the  dcxacoaovrj 
Szoi)  or  kx  mavsoji;,  meets  the  demands  of  the  law,  is  the  true 
ground  of  justification.  Olshausen,  3,  21.  See  also  Neanders 
Geschiehte  der  Pjianzung,  pp.  503 — 510.  The  doctrine  of  the 
divines  of  the  school  of  Schleiermacher,  presented  in  formulas 
more  or  less  mystic  and  transcendental  is,  that  as  we  derive  a 
corrupt  nature  from  Adam,  and  on  the  ground  of  that  nature 
are  condemned,  so  we  derive  a  holy  nature  from  Christ,  and  on 
the  ground  of  that  nature  are  justified.  5.  In  opposition  to  all 
these  views,  which  place  the  ground  of  justification,  so  far  as  it 
is  a  declarative  act,  in  man's  own  inward  character  or  state, 
Protestants  with  one  heart  and  one  voice  teach  that  by  the 
works  of  the  law,  which  are  excluded  from  the  ground  of  justi- 
fication, are  meant  not  only  ceremonial  works,  not  merely  the 
works  of  the  unregenerate  done  without  grace,  not  only  the 
perfect  obedience  required  by  the  law  originally  given  to 
Adam,  but  works  of  all  kinds,  everything  either  done  by  us  or 
wrought  in  us.  In  proof  of  this,  it  may  be  urged :  1.  That  the 
law  of  which  the  apostle  speaks,  is  the  law  which  binds  all  man- 
kind. It  is  the  law,  the  violation  of  which  renders  all  men 
guilty  before  God,  as  stated  in  ver.  19.  The  whole  of  the  pre- 
ceding argument  is  designed  to  show  that  both  Jews  and  Gen- 
tiles, viewed  as  to  their  personal  character,  are  under  sin  and 
incapable  of  justification  on  the  ground  of  their  own  character 
or  conduct.  2.  This  law  which  thus  binds  all  men,  demands 
the  highest  kind  of  moral  obedience.  It  is  spiritual,  extending 
not  merely  to  the  external  act,  but  to  the  secret  motives.  It 
says,  "thou  shalt  not  covet;"  thus  condemning  all  irregular 
or  inordinate  desires.  It  is  holy,  just,  and  good.  It  requires 
us  to  love  God  with  all  the  heart,  and  our  neighbour  as  our- 
selves. There  can  therefore  be  no  form  or  kind  of  righteous- 
ness, whether  natural  or  gracious,  higher  than  that  which  the 
law  demands,  and  which  is  comprehended  in  the  w^orks  of  the 
law.     3.  The  contrast  or  opposition  is  never  between  one  kind 


132  ROMANS  III.  20. 

of  works  and  another.  Paul  does  not  teach  that  we  cannot  be 
justified  by  ceremonial  works,  but  are  justified  by  good  works ; 
he  does  not  exclude  merely  o-pera  ex  solis  naturce  viribus,  i.  e. 
works  of  the  unregenerate,  and  assert  that  works  flowing  from 
a  principle  of  grace  are  the  ground  of  justification ;  he  does  not 
contrast  imperfect  obedience  under  the  gospel  with  the  perfect 
obedience  required  of  Adam;  but  the  opposition  is  always 
between  works  in  genei'al,  all  works,  and  faith.  4.  The  works 
rejected  as  inadequate  are  called  "works  of  righteousness," 
Titus  iii.  5 ;  that  is,  works  of  the  highest  order,  for  there  is  no 
designation  of  excellence  of  higher  import  than  that.  5.  The 
works  intended  are  such  as  Abraham,  the  father  of  the  faithful, 
whose  obedience  is  held  up  as  a  model  to  all  generations,  per- 
formed. 6.  Whenever  the  ground  of  our  justification  is  affirma- 
tively stated,  it  is  declared  to  be  the  obedience,  the  death,  the 
blood  or  work  of  Christ.  7.  The  objection  to  the  apostle's 
doctrine,  which  he  answers  at  length  in  chap,  vi.,  supposes  that 
good  works  of  every  kind  are  excluded  from  the  ground  of  our 
justification.  That  objection  is,  that  if  works  are  not  the 
ground  of  justification,  then  we  may  live  in  sin.  There  could 
be  no  room  for  such  an  objection,  had  the  apostle  taught  that 
we  are  not  justified  by  mere  ceremonial  or  moral  works,  but  by 
works  of  a  higher  order  of  merit.  It  was  his  rejecting  all 
works,  every  kind  and  degree  of  personal  excellence,  and 
making  something  external  to  ourselves,  something  done  for  us 
as  opposed  to  everything  wrought  in  us,  the  ground  of  our 
acceptance  with  God,  that  called  forth  the  objection  in  question. 
And  this  objection  has  been  urged  against  Paul's  doctrine  from 
that  day  to  this.  8.  Appeal  may  safely  be  made  on  this  subject 
to  the  testimony  of  the  Church  or  the  experience  of  the  people 
of  God  of  every  age  and  nation.  They  with  one  accord,  at 
least  in  their  prayers  and  praises,  renounce  all  dependence  on 
their  own  inward  excellence,  and  cast  themselves  on  the  work 
or  merit  of  Christ.  In  reference  to  this  cardinal  doctrine, 
Calvin  says:  "Neque  vero  me  latet,  Augustinum  secus  expo- 
nere ;  justitiam  enim  Dei  esse  putat  regenerationis  gratiam ;  et 
banc  gratuitam  esse  fatetur,  quia  Dominus  immerentes  Spiritu 
suo  nos  renovat.  Ab  hac  autem  opera  legis  excludit,  hoc  est 
quibus  homines  a   seipsis  citra  renovationem  conantur  Deum 


ROMANS  III.  20.  1.33 

promereri.  Mihi  etiam  plus  satis  notum  est,  quosdam  novos 
Bpeculatores  hoc  dogma  superciliose  proferre  quasi  hodie  sibi 
revelatum.  Sed  apostolum  omnia  sine  exceptione  opera  com- 
piecti,  etiam  quae  Dominus  in  suis  efficit,  ex  contextu  planum 
fiet.  Nam  certe  regeneratus  erat  Abraham,  et  Spiritu  Dei 
agebatur  quo  tempore  justificatum  fuisse  operibus  negat.  Ergo 
a  justificatione  hominis  non  opera  tantum  moraliter  bona  (ut 
vulgo  appellant)  et  quae  fiunt  naturae  instinctu  excludit,  sed 
quaecunque  etiam  fideles  habere  possunt.  Deinde  si  ilia  est 
justitiae  fidei  definitio,  Beati  quorum  remissae  sunt  iniquitates, 
Ps.  xxxii.  1 ;  non  disputatur  de  hoc  vel  illo  genere  operum ; 
sed  abolito  operum  merito  sola  peccatorum  remissio  justitiae 
causa  statuitur.  Putant  haec  duo  op  time  convenire,  fide  justifi- 
cari  hominem  per  Christi  gratiam;  et  tamen  operibus  justificari, 
qufe  ex  regeneratione  spirituali  proveniant;  quia  et  gratuito 
nos  Deus  renovat,  et  ejus  donum  fide  percipimus.  At  Paulus 
longe  aliud  principium  sumit :  nunquam  scilicet  tranquillas  fore 
conscientias,  donee  in  solam  Dei  misericordiam  recumbant ;  ideo 
alibi  postquam  docuit  Deum  fuisse  in  Christo,  ut  homines  justi- 
ficaret,  modum  simul  exprimit,  non  imputando  illis  peccata." 

For  hy  the  law  is  the  knowledge  of  sin.  No  flesh  can  be 
justified  by  the  law,  for  by  the  law  we  are  convinced  of  sin. 
The  law  condemns  by  bringing  sin  clearly  to  our  knowledge 
as  deserving  the  wrath  of  God,  which  is  revealed  against  all 
sin,  and  therefore  it  cannot  justify.  "Ex  eadem  scatebra," 
says  Calvin,  "  non  prodeunt  vita  et  mors."  ETzcyuwa:^  {full  or 
accurate  knowledge)  is  stronger  than  the  simple  word  yucoaa; 
(knowledge.)  When  the  object  of  knowledge  is  something  in 
our  own  consciousness,  as  in  the  case  of  sin,  knowledge  involves 
a  recognition  of  the  true  nature  of  that  object,  and  a  cor- 
responding experience.  The  knowledge  of  sin  is  therefore  not 
a  mere  intellectual  cognition,  but  an  inward  conviction,  includ- 
ing both  an  intellectual  apprehension  and  a  due  sense  of  its 
turpitude  and  guilt.  This  is  the  office  of  the  law.  It  was  not 
designed  to  give  life,  but  so  to  convince  of  sin  that  men  may  be 
led  to  renounce  their  own  righteousness  and  trust  in  the  right- 
eousness of  Christ  as  the  only  and  all-sufficient  ground  of  their 
acceptance  with  God. 


134  ROMANS  III.  9—20. 


DOCTRINE. 


1.  However  men  may  differ  among  themselves  as  to  Indivi- 
dual character,  as  to  outward  circumstances,  religious  or  social, 
when  they  appear  at  the  bar  of  God,  all  appear  on  the  same 
level.  All  are  sinners,  and  being  sinners,  are  exposed  to  con- 
demnation, ver.  9. 

2.  The  general  declarations  of  the  Scriptures,  descriptive  of 
the  character  of  men  before  the  advent  of  Christ,  are  applicable 
to  men  in  all  ages  of  the  world,  because  they  describe  human 
nature.  They  declare  what  fallen  man  is.  As  we  recognize 
the  descriptions  of  the  human  heart  given  by  profane  writers  a 
thousand  years  ago,  as  suited  to  its  present  character,  so  the 
inspired  description  suits  us  as  well  as  those  for  whom  it  was 
originally  intended,  vs.  10 — 18. 

3.  Piety  and  morality  cannot  be  separated.  If  men  do  not 
understand,  if  they  have  no  fear  of  God  before  their  eyes,  they 
become  altogether  unprofitable,  there  is  none  that  doeth  good, 
vs.  10—12. 

4.  The  oflSce  of  the  law  is  neither  to  justify  nor  to  sanctify. 
It  convinces  and  condemns.  All  efforts  to  secure  the  favour  of 
God,  therefore,  by  legal  obedience  must  be  vain,  ver.  20. 


REMARKS. 

1.  As  God  regards  the  moral  character  in  men,  and  as  we 
are  all  sinners,  no  one  has  any  reason  to  exalt  himself  over 
another.  With  our  hands  upon  our  mouth,  and  our  mouth  in 
the  dust,  we  must  all  appear  as  guilty  before  God,  ver.  9. 

2.  The  Scriptures  are  the  message  of  God  to  all  to  whom 
they  come.  They  speak  general  truths,  which  are  intended  to 
apply  to  all  to  whom  they  are  applicable.  What  they  say  of 
sinners,  as  such,  they  say  of  all  sinners ;  what  they  promise  to 
believers,  they  promise  to  all  believers.  They  should,  there- 
fore, ever  be  read  with  a  spirit  of  self-application,  vs.  10 — 18. 

3.  To  be  prepared  for  the  reception  of  the  gospel,  we  must 
be  convinced  of  sin,  humbled  under  a  sense  of  its  turpitude, 
silenced   under   a   conviction   of  its    condemning   power,    and 


ROMANS  III.  21.  135 

prostrated  at  the  footstool  of  mercy,  under  a  feeling  that  we 
cannot  satisfy  the  demands  of  the  law,  that  if  ever  saved,  it 
must  be  by  other  merit  and  other  power  than  our  own,  ver.  20. 


ROMANS   III.  21—31. 

ANALYSIS. 

Having  proved  that  justification,  on  the  ground  of  legal 
obedience  or  personal  merit,  is  for  all  men  impossible,  Paul 
proceeds  to  unfold  the  method  of  salvation  presented  in  the 
gospel.  With  regard  to  this  method,  he  here  teaches,  1.  Its 
nature.  2.  The  ground  on  which  the  offer  of  justification  is 
made.     3.  Its  object.     4.  Its  results. 

I.  As  to  its  nature,  he  teaches,  1.  That  the  righteousness 
which  it  proposes  is  not  attainable  by  works,  but  by  faith, 
vs.  21,  22.  2.  That  it  is  adapted  to  all  men,  Jews  as  well 
as  Gentiles,  since  there  is  no  difference  as  to  their  moral  state, 
vs.  22,  23.     3.  It  is  entirely  gratuitous,  ver.  24. 

II.  As  to  its  ground,  it  is  the  redemption  that  is  in  Christ 
Jesus,  or  Jesus  Christ  as  a  propitiatory  sacrifice,  vs.  24,  25. 

III.  Its  object  is  the  display  of  the  divine  perfections,  and 
the  reconciliation  of  the  justice  of  God  with  the  exhibition  of 
mercy  to  the  sinner,  ver.  26. 

IV.  Its  results.  1.  It  humbles  man  by  excluding  all  ground 
of  boasting,  vs.  27,  28.  2.  It  presents  God  in  his  true  charac- 
ter as  the  God  and  father  of  all  men,  of  the  Gentile  no  less 
than  of  the  Jew,  vs.  29,  30.     3.  It  confirms  the  law,  ver.  31. 


COMMENTARY. 

Verse  21.  But  now  the  righteousness  of  G-od  without  the  Imv 
is  manifested^  &o.  Having  demonstrated  that  no  flesh  can  be 
justified  by  the  deeds  of  the  law  in  the  sight  of  God,  the  apostle 
proceeds  to  show  how  the  sinner  can  be  justified.  With  regard 
to  this  point,  he  teaches,  in  this  verse,  1.  That  the  righteous- 
ness which  is  acceptable  to  God  is  not  a  legal  righteousness ; 
and,  2.  That  it  had  been  taught  already  in  the  Old  Testament. 


136  ROMANS  III.  21., 

The  words  hut  noiv  may  be  regarded  as  merely  marking  the 
transition  from  one  paragraph  to  another,  or  as  a  designation 
of  time,  now,  i.  e.  under  the  gospel  dispensation.  In  favour  of 
this  view  is  the  phrase,  "to  declare,  at  this  time,  his  righteous- 
ness," in  ver.  26 ;  compare  also  i.  17.  Is  manifested,  i.  e.  clearly 
made  known,  equivalent  to  the  phrase  is  revealed,  as  used  in 
i.  17.  The  words  righteousness  of  Grod,  are  subjected  here  to 
the  same  diversity  of  interpretation  that  was  noticed  in  the 
passage  just  cited,  where  they  first  occur.  They  may  mean, 
1.  A  divine  attribute,  the  justice,  mercy,  or  general  rectitude 
of  God.  2.  That  righteousness  which  is  acceptable  to  God, 
which  is  such  in  his  estimation.  3.  God's  method  of  justifica- 
tion ;  compare  i.  17.  The  last  interpretation  gives  here  a  very 
good  sense,  and  is  one  very  commonly  adopted.  '  The  method 
of  justification  by  works  being  impossible,  God  has  revealed 
another,  already  taught  indeed,  both  in  the  law  and  prophets,  a 
method  which  is  not  legal  (without  law,)  i.  e.  not  on  the  condi- 
tion of  obedience  to  the  law,  but  on  the  condition  of  faith,  which 
is  applicable  to  all  men,  and  perfectly  gratuitous,'  vs.  21 — 24. 
But  for  the  reasons  stated  above,  in  the  remarks  on  i.  17,  the 
interpretation  which  best  suits  both  the  force  of  the  words  and 
Paul's  usage  is,  '  The  righteousness  of  which  God  is  the  author, 
which  comes  from  him,  which  he  gives,  and  which  consequently 
is  acceptable  in  his  sight.'  The  word  righteousness  is  employed 
to  designate  that  excellence  which  the  law  demands,  or  which 
constitutes  a  man  dcxaco^  (righteous)  in  the  sight  of  the  law,  and 
the  genitive  (vou  deob)  of  Grod,  indicates  the  source  or  author 
of  that  righteousness.  As  men  therefore  cannot  attain  such 
righteousness  by  the  deeds  of  the  law,  God  has  revealed  in  the 
gospel  another  righteousness,  which  is  not  legal,  but  is  attained 
or  received  by  faith,  and  is  offered  to  all  men,  whether  Jews  or 
Gentiles,  as  a  free  gift.  The  words  y^topiQ  vofxou,  without  law, 
may  qualify  the  word  righteousness.  It  is  a  righteousness 
without  law,  or  with  which  the  law  has  nothing  to  do.  It  is 
not  a  product  of  the  law,  and  does  not  consist  in  our  inward 
conformity  to  its  precepts ;  so  that  Xcopt(;  vofxou  is  equivalent  to 
X(i>pk  ipfiov  v6[ioo,  Gal.  ii.  16.  The  connection  however  may 
be  with  the  verb :  '  Without  the  law  (i.  e.  without  the  coopera- 
tion of  the  law)  the  righteousness  of  God  is  revealed.     But  the 


ROMANS  III.  22.  137 

whole  context  treats  of  justification  without  works,  and  there- 
fore the  interpretation  which  makes  the  apostle  say  that  a 
righteousness  without  the  works  of  the  law  is  made  known  in 
the  gospel,  is  more  suited  to  the  connection.  The  perfect 
7:t(pavspu)Tac  has  its  appropriate  force.  The  revelation  has 
been  made  and  still  continues.  This  righteousness,  which,  so 
to  speak,  had  long  been  buried  under  the  types  and  indistinct 
utterances  of  the  old  dispensation,  has  now  in  the  gospel  been 
made  [cpavepd^  clear  and  apparent.  The  apostle  therefore  adds, 
being  testified  by  the  law  and  the  prophets.  The  word  is  fxap' 
xupouixzvq^  being  testified  to;  the  present  is  used  because  the 
testimony  of  the  Old  Testament  to  the  gospel  Avas  still  con- 
tinued. The  Jews  were  accustomed  to  divide  the  Scriptures 
into  two  parts — the  Law  including  the  five  books  of  Moses,  and 
the  Prophets  including  all  the  other  books.  The  word  prophet 
means  one  who  speaks  for  God.  All  inspired  men  are  prophets, 
and  therefore  the  designation  applies  to  the  historical,  as  well 
as  to  the  books  which  we  are  accustomed,  in  a  more  restricted 
sense  of  the  word,  to  call  prophetical.  The  Law  and  the  Pro- 
phets therefore  mean  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures.  Matt. 
V.  17,  vii.  12,  Luke  xvi.  31,  Acts  xiii.  15,  &c.  The  words  desig- 
nated a  well  known  volume,  and  had  to  the  minds  of  the  Jews 
as  definite  a  meaning  as  the  word  Bible  has  with  us.  The  con- 
stant recognition  of  that  volume  in  the  New  Testament  as  of 
divine  authority,  relieves  us  of  the  necessity  of  proving  sepa- 
rately the  inspiration  of  its  several  books.  In  sanctioning  the 
volume  as  the  word  of  God,  Christ  and  his  apostles  gave  their 
sanction  to  the  divine  authority  of  all  that  the  volume  contains. . 
That  the  Old  Testament  does  teach  the  doctrine  of  "  a  right- 
eousness without  works,"  Paul  proves  in  the  next  chapter,  from 
the  case  of  Abraham,  and  from  the  declarations  of  David. 

Verse  22.  Even  the  righteousness  of  Grod.  The  repetition 
of  the  subject  from  the  preceding  verse;  8e  is  therefore  not 
adversative,  but  is  properly  rendered  eve7i.  This  righteousness, 
of  which  God  is  the  author,  and  which  is  available  before  him, 
and  which  is  now  revealed,  is  more  particularly  described  as  a 
{dixacoauvT]  {ouaa)  did  7tiaTS.a)^)  righteousness  which  is  of  faith, 
i.  e.  by  means  of  faith,  not  did  Tziavcv,  on  account  of  faith.  Faith 
is  not  the  ground  of  our  justification ;  it  is  not  the  righteousness 


138  ROMANS  III.  22. 

which  makes  us  righteous  before  God,  (it  is  not  itself  the 
dcxaxoaw-fj  too  6eou,)  nor  is  it  even  represented  as  the  inward 
principle  whence  that  righteousness  proceeds.  It  is  indeed  the 
principle  of  evangelical  obedience,  the  source  of  holiness  in 
heart  and  life;  but  such  obedience  or  holiness  is  not  our  justi- 
fying righteousness.  Holiness  is  the  consequence  and  not  the 
cause  of  our  justification,  as  the  apostle  proves  at  length  in  the 
subsequent  parts  of  this  epistle.  This  righteousness  is  through 
faith,  as  it  is  received  and  appropriated  by  faith..  It  is,  more- 
over, flot  faith  in  general,  not  mere  confidence  in  God,  not 
simply  a  belief  in  the  Scriptures  as  the  word  of  God,  much  less 
a  recognition  of  the  truth  of  the  spiritual  and  invisible,  but  it  is 
faith  of  Christ;  that  is,  faith  of  which  Christ  is  the  object.  A 
man  may  believe  what  else  he  may;  unless  he  receives  and  rests 
on  Christ  alone  for  salvation,  receives  him  as  the  Son  of  God, 
who  loved  us  and  gave  himself  for  us,  he  has  not  the  faith  of 
which  the  apostle  here  speaks  as  the  indispensable  condition 
of  salvation.  This  important  doctrine  is  not  only  clearly  but 
frequently  brought  into  view  in  the  New  Testament.  What  our 
Lord  constantly  demanded  was  not  merely  religious  faith  in 
general,  but  specifically  faith  in  himself  as  the  Son  of  God  and 
Saviour  of  the  world.  It  is  only  faith  in  Christ,  not  faith  as 
such,  which  makes  a  man  a  Christian.  "  If  ye  believe  not  that 
I  am  he,"  saith  our  Lord,  "ye  shall  die  in  your  sins,"  John 
viii.  24.  "  To  as  many  as  received  him,  to  them  gave  he  power 
to  become  the  sons  of  God,  even  to  as  many  as  believed  on  his 
name,"  John  i.  12.  "That  whosoever  believeth  on  him  should 
not  perish,  but  have  eternal  life,"  John  iii.  14,  16.  "Whoso- 
ever believeth  on  him,  shall  not  be  confo\inded,"  Rom.  ix.  33. 
"How  shall  they  call  on  him  on  whom  they  have  not  believed," 
X.  14.  Such  passages  are  almost  innumerable.  So  when  the 
object  of  saving  faith  is  designated,  it  is  said  to  be  not  truth  in 
general,  but  Christ  himself.  See  ver.  25,  (through  faith  in  his 
blood,)  Gal.  ii.  16,  20,  iii.  24,  Eph.  iii.  12,  &c.  The  act  there- 
fore which  the  sinner  is  required  to  perform,  in  order  to  be 
made  a  partaker  of  the  righteousness  of  God,  is  to  believe  on 
Christ ;  that  is,  to  receive  him  as  he  is  revealed  in  the  gospel 
as  the  eternal  Son  of  God,  clothed  in  our  nature,  loving  us  and 
giving  himself  as  a  propitiation  for  our  sins.     As  there  is  no 


ROMANS  III.  23.  189 

verb  in  the  text,  of  which  dcxacoaovvj  {righteousness)  is  the  nomi- 
native, we  must  either  borrow  the  verb  T:t(pavkpo)xcu  from  ver. 
21,  'the  righteousness  of  God  is  manifested  unto  all;'  or  what 
better  suits  what  follows,  supply  ep^ezac,  comes  (or  simply  iazi, 
is)  unto  all  and  upon  all.  The  words  xac  eTzt  TzdvzaQ  [and  upon 
all)  are  omitted  in  the  MSS.  A.  c.  20.  31.  47.  66.  67;  in  the 
Coptic  and  Ethiopic  versions;  and  by  several  of  the  Fathers. 
Griesbach  and  Lachmann  leave  them  out  of  the  text;  most 
modern  critical  editions  retain  them,  both  on  external  and 
internal  grounds.  This  righteousness  is  e/c  nduzat;,  extending 
unto  all,  xac  inc  rcdvza^,  and  over  all,  as  covering  them  or  over- 
flowing them.  "Eine  Gnadenfluth,"  says  Olshausen,  "die  an 
alle  herandringt  und  sogar  uber  alle  hinliberstromt."  There 
is  no  distinction  between  Jew  and  Gentile  recognized  in  this 
method  of  salvation.  The  question  is  not  as  to  whether  men 
are  of  this  or  that  race,  or  of  one  or  another  rank  in  life,  or  in 
the  Church  visible  or  out  of  it.  This  righteousness  is  unto  all 
who  believe.  Faith  is  all  that  is  demanded.  The  reason  why 
the  same  method  of  salvation  is  suited  to  all  men  is  given  in  the 
following  clause :  For  there  is  no  difference  among  men  as  to . 
their  moral  state  or  relation  to  God,  or  as  to  their  need  of  sal- 
vation, or  as  to  what  is  necessary  to  that  end.  What  one  man 
needs  all  require,  and  what  is  suited  to  one  is  suited  to  and 
sufficient  for  all.  The  characteristics,  therefore,  of  the  plan  of 
salvation  presented  in  this  verse  are :  1.  That  the  righteousness 
of  God  which  is  revealed  in  the  gospel  is  to  be  attained  by 
faith,  not  by  works,  not  by  birth,  not  by  any  external  rite,  not 
by  union  with  any  visible  Church,  but  simply  and  only  by 
believing  on  Christ,  receiving  and  resting  upon  him.  2.  That 
this  righteousness  is  suited  to  and  sufficient  for  all  men ;  not 
only  for  all  classes,  but  for  all  numerically;  so  that  no  one  can 
perish  for  the  want  of  a  righteousness  suitable  and  sufficient, 
clearly  revealed  and  freely  offered. 

Verse  23.  For  all  have  sinned.  This  is  the  reason  why 
there  is  no  difference  as  to  the  condition  of  men.  All  are 
sinners.  The  apostle  uses  the  aorist  -Tjnapzov,  sinned,  and  not 
the  perfect,  have  sinned.  RUckert  says  this  is  an  inaccuracy; 
Bengel  explains  it  by  assuming  that  the  original  act  in  paradise, 
and  the  sinful  disposition,  and  also  the  acts  of  transgression 


140  ROMANS  III.  24. 

flowing  from  it,  are  all  denoted.  Olshausen  says  that  the 
reference  is  mainly  to  original  sin;  for  where  there  are  no 
peccata  aetualia,  there  is  still  need  of  redemption.  Dr.  Words- 
worth, Canon  of  Westminster,  gives  the  same  explanation: 
"All  men  sinned  in  Adam,  all  fell  in  him."  Meyer  says, 
"  The  sinning  of  each  man  is  presented  as  an  historical  fact  of 
the  past."  The  idea  that  all  men  now  stand  in  the  posture 
of  sinners  before  God  might  be  expressed  either  by  saying,  All 
have  sinned  (and  are  sinners,)  or  all  sinned.  The  latter  is  the 
form  adopted  by  the  apostle.  And  come  short,  bazepouvrcu,  in 
the  present  tense.  The  sinning  is  represented  as  past ;  the 
present  and  abiding  consequence  of  sin  is  the  want  of  the  glory 
of  Grod.  By  do^a  zoo  deou  is  most  naturally  understood  the 
approbation  of  God,  the  do^a  which  comes  from  God;  comp. 
John  xii.  43,  "They  love  the  praise  of  men  rather  than  the 
praise  [oo^av)  of  God."  Calvin  explains  it  as  the  glory  quoe 
coram  Deo  locum  habet,  glory  before  God,  i.  e.  in  his  estimation, 
as  he  explains  dcxacoaovrj  Seoo  to  be  righteousness  in  his  sight, 
what  he  regards  as  such.  This  is  against  the  natural  force  of 
the  genitive.  Others  understand  oo^a  in  the  sense  of  glorying, 
non  habent,  unde  coram  Deo  glorientur,  Estius ;  so  also  Luther, 
Tholuck,  (who  refers  to  John  v.  44,  do^av  Tiapa  zou  6sod,)  and 
others.  This  idea  would  be  expressed  by  the  word  xauyv^aci;, 
ver.  27,  or  xauj^r^/ia,  iv.  2,  1  Cor.  v.  6,  ix.  16,  &c.  Others  again 
say  that  the  glory  of  Grod  here  means  that  glory  which  God 
promises  to  the  righteous,  as  in  v.  2.  So  Beza,  who  says, 
"  oo^a  est  meta  ad  quam  contendimus,  id  est,  vita  seterna,  quae 
in  glorise  Dei  participatione  consistit."  E-iickert  and  Olshausen 
say  it  means  the  image  of  God :  '  Men  are  sinners,  and  are 
destitute  of  the  image  of  God.'  But  this  is  not  the  sense  of  the 
words ;  '  the  glory  of  God'  does  not  mean  a  glory  like  to  that 
of  God.  The  first  interpretation,  which  is  the  simplest,  is  per- 
fectly suited  to  the  context.  All  men  are  sinners  and  under 
the  disapprobation  of  God.  In  this  respect  there  is  no  differ- 
ence between  them ;  and  therefore  all  need  a  righteousness 
not  their  own,  in  order  to  their  justification  before  God. 

Verse  24.  Being  justified  freely  by  his  grace,  through  the 
redemption  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus.  The  apostle  continues  his 
exhibition  of  the  method  of  salvation  by  using  the  participle 


ROMANS  III.  24.  141 

*  being  justified,'  instead  of  the  verb  'we  are  justified,'  agreea- 
bly to  a  mode  of  construction  not  unusual  in  the  Greek,  though 
much  more  frequent  in  the  Hebrew.  Juacoufjteuoc  therefore 
depends  on  uarepouvrac,  '  all  come  short  of  the  favour  of  God, 
being  justified  freely.'  That  is,  since  justification  is  gratuitous, 
the  subjects  of  it  are  in  themselves  unworthy;  they  do  not  merit 
God's  favour.  Justification  is  as  to  us  dcopsdu,  a  matter  of  gift ; 
on  the  part  of  God  it  is  an  act  of  grace ;  we  are  justified  t^ 
abtou  yaptxi  hy  Ms  grace.  The  act,  so  far  as  we  are  concerned, 
is  altogether  gratuitous.  We  have  not  the  slightest  degree  of 
merit  to  ofier  as  the  ground  of  our  acceptance.  This  is  the 
third  characteristic  of  the  method  of  justification  which  is  by 
the  righteousness  of  God.  Though  it  is  so  entirely  gratuitous 
as  regards  the  sinner,  yet  it  is  in  a  way  perfectly  consistent 
with  the  justice  of  God.  It  is  through  "  the  redemption  that  is 
in  Christ  Jesus,"  that  is,  of  which  he  is  the  anther. 

The  word  dTzoXurpcoai^,  redemption,  has  two  senses  in  the 
New  Testament.  1.  It  means  properly  'a  deliverance  effected 
by  the  payment  of  a  ransom.'  This  is  its  primary  etymological 
meaning.  2.  It  means  deliverance  simply,  without  any  refer- 
ence to  the  mode  of  its  accomplishment,  whether  by  power  or 
wisdom.  Luke  xxi.  28,  "  The  day  of  redemption  (i.  e.  of  deli- 
verance) draweth  nigh;"  Heb.  xi.  25,  and  perhaps  Rom.  viii.  23; 
compare  Isa.  1.  2,  "  Is  my  hand  shortened  at  all,  that  it  cannot 
redeem?"  &c.  When  applied  to  the  work  of  Christ,  as  affect- 
ing our  deliverance  from  the  punishment  of  sin,  it  is  always 
taken  in  its  proper  sense,  deliverance  effected  hy  the  payment 
of  a  ransom.  This  is  evident,  1.  Because  in  no  case  where  it 
is  thus  used,  is  anything  said  of  the  precepts,  doctrines,  or 
power  of  Christ,  as  the  means  by  which  the  deliverance  is 
effected;  but  uniformly  his  sufferings  are  mentioned  as  the 
ground  of  deliverance.  Eph.  i.  T,  "  In  whom  we  have  redemp- 
tion through  his  blood;"  Heb.  ix.  15,  "By  means  of  death,  for 
the  redemption  of  transgressions,"  Col.  i.  14.  2.  In  this  pas- 
sage the  nature  of  this  redemption  is  explained  by  the  following 
verse :  it  is  not  by  truth,  nor  the  exhibition  of  excellence,  but 
through  Christ  '  as  a  propitiatory  sacrifice,  through  faith  in  his 
blood.'  3.  Equivalent  expressions  fix  the  meaning  of  the  term 
beyond  doubt.     1  Tim.  ii.  6,  "  Who  gave  himself  as  a  ransom 


142  ROMANS  III.  25. 

for  all;"  Matt.  xx.  28,  "  The  Son  of  man  came  to  give  his  life 
as  a  ransom  for  many;"  1  Peter  i.  18,  "Ye  were  not  redeemed 
with  corruptible  things,  such  as  silver  and  gold,  but  with  the 
V  /precious  blood  of  Christ,"  &c.  Accordingly  Christ  is  presented 
as  a  Redeemer,  not  in  the  character  of  a  teacher  or  witness,  but 
of  a  priest,  a  sacrifice,  a  propitiation,  &c.  That  from  which  we 
are  redeemed  is  the  wrath  of  God ;  the  price  of  our  redemption 
,  is  the  blood  of  Christ.  That  is  in  Christ  Jesus.  This  may 
^"^  mean  b^  him,  Iv  having  its  instrumental  force,  as  in  Acts 
xvii.  31,  (iv  dvdpc  cu,)  by  the  man.  As  this  use  of  the  prepo- 
sition with  names  of  persons  is  infrequent,  others  retain  its 
usual  force,  in.  Compare  Eph.  i.  7,  "  In  whom  (iv  cw)  we  have 
redemption,"  &c.;  and  Col.  i.  14,  'We  are  justified  by  means 
[otd)  of  the  redemption  which  we  have  in  virtue  of  union  to 
Christ.' 

Verse  25.  Whom  Grod  hath  set  forth  to  be  a  propitiation, 
through  faith  in  his  blood,  &c.  This  clause  contains  the  ground 
of  our  deliverance  from  the  curse  of  the  law,  and  of  our  accept- 
ance with  God,  and  constitutes  therefore  the  second  step  in  the 
apostle's  exhibition  of  the  plan  of  salvation.  He  had  already 
taught  that  justifijcation  was  not  by  works,  but  by  faith,  and 
entirely  gratuitous ;  he  now  comes  to  show  how  it  is  that  this 
exercise  of  mercy  to  the  sinner  can  be  reconciled  with  the 
justice  of  God  and  the  demands  of  his  law.  The  word  rcpoi- 
^£To,  hath  set  forth,  also  signifies  to  purpose,  to  determine, 
Rom.  i.  13 ;  compare  viii.  28.  If  this  sense  be  adopted  here, 
the  meaning  would  be,  '  whom  God  hath  purposed  or  decreed  to 
be  a  propitiation.'  But  the  context  refers  to  a  fact  rather  than 
a  purpose ;  and  the  words  e/c  ^voec^tv  [for  the  manifestation,) 
as  expressing  the  design  of  the  manifestation  of  Christ,  is 
decidedly  in  favour  of  the  common  interpretation.  There  are 
three  interpretations  of  the  word  IXaarijpcov,  {propitiation,) 
which  are  worthy  of  attention.  It  was  understood  by  many 
of  the  Fathers,  and  after  them  by  Luther,  Calvin,  Grotius, 
Olshausen,  and  others,  to  mean  the  propitiatory,  or  mercy-seat, 
over  the  ark  of  the  covenant,  on  which  the  high  priest,  on  the 
great  day  of  atonement,  sprinkled  the  blood  of  the  sacrifices. 
Here  it  was  that  God  was  propitiated,  and  manifested  himself 
as  reconciled  to  his  people.     The  ground  of  this  interpretation 


ROMANS  III.  25.  143 

is,  that  the  original  word  here  used  is  employed  in  the  Septua- 
gint  as  the  designation  of  the  mercy-seat,  Exod.  xxv.  18 — 20 ; 
and  often  elsewhere.  The  meaning  would  then  be,  *  that  God 
had  set  forth  Jesus  Christ  as  a  mercy-seat,  as  the  place  in 
which,  or  the  person  in  whom  he  was  propitiated,  and  ready  to 
forgive  and  accept  the  sinner.'  But  the  objections  to  this 
interpretation  are  serious.  1.  The  use  of  the  word  by  the 
Greek  translators  of  the  Old  Testament,  probably  arose  from 
a  mistake  of  the  proper  meaning  of  the  Hebrew  term.  The 
Hebrew  word  means  properly  a  cover;  but  as  the  verb  whence 
it  comes  means  literally,  to  cover,  and  metaphorically,  to  atone 
for,  to  propitiate,  the  Greek  translators  incorrectly  rendered 
the  noun  IXaarrjpcov,  the  Latin  propitiatorium,  and  our  trans- 
lators, the  mercy-seat,  a  sense  which  triBS  never  has.  It  is, 
therefore,  in  itself  a  wrong  use  of  the  Greek  word.  2.  This 
interpretation  is  not  consistent  with  the  analogy  of  Scripture. 
The  sacred  writers  are  not  accustomed  to  compare  the  Saviour 
to  the  cover  of  the  ark,  nor  to  illustrate  his  work  by  such  a 
reference.  This  passage,  if  thus  interpreted,  would  stand  alone 
in  this  respect.  3.  According  to  this  view,  there  is  an  obvious 
incongruity  in  the  figure.  It  is  common  to  speak  of  the  blood 
of  a  sacrifice,  but  not  of  the  blood  of  the  mercy-seat.  Besides, 
Paul  in  this  very  clause  speaks  of  "Aw  blood."  See  Deylingii 
Observationes,  Part  II.,  sect.  41,  and  Krehss  New  Testament, 
illustrated  from  the  writings  of  Josephus. 

The  second  interpretation  supposes  that  the  word  dvpta 
[sacrifice)  is  to  be  supplied :  '  Whom  he  has  set  forth  as  a  pro- 
pitiatory sacrifice.'  1.  In  favour  of  this  interpretation  is  the 
etymology  of  the  word.  It  is  derived  from  iXdaxofxac,  to  appease, 
to  conciliate.  Hence  IXaar^pcoi^,  as  an  adjective,  is  applied  to 
anything  designed  to  propitiate;  as  in  the  expressions  "pro- 
pitiatory monument,"  "propitiatory  death."  [Josephus,  Ant. 
XVI.  7.  1  Lib.  de  Mace,  sect.  17.  See  Krebs  on  this  verse.) 
2.  The  use  of  analogous  terms  in  reference  to  the  sacrificial 
services  under  the  old  dispensation,  as  acor^pcov,  sacrifieium  pro 
salute,  Exod.  xx.  24,  xxviii.  29,  for  which  we  have  in  Exod. 
xxiv.  5,  ^uma  aa)T7jpiou;  so  yaptar-qpia,  thank-offerings,  to 
xa&dpacov,  the  offering  for  purification.  In  keeping  with  all 
these  terms  is  the  use  of  Uacrrijpiov  [dvpLO)  in  the  sense  of 


144  ROMANS  III.  25. 

propitiatory  sacrifice.  3.  The  whole  context  favours  this  ex- 
planation, inasmuch  as  the  apostle  immediately  speaks  of  the 
blood  of  this  sacrifice,  and  as  his  design  is  to  show  how  the 
gratuitous  justification  of  men  can  be  reconciled  with  the  justice 
of  God.  It  is  only  a  modification  of  this  interpretation,  if 
IXaarn^pcov  be  taken  substantively  and  rendered  propitiation,  as 
is  done  in  the  Vulgate  and  by  Beza. 

The  third  interpretation  assumes  that  IXaarijpcou  is  here  used 
in  the  masculine  gender,  and  means  propitiator.  This  is  the 
explanation  given  by  Semler  and  Wahl ;  but  this  is  contrary  to 
the  usage  of  the  word  and  inconsistent  with  the  context.     The 

w^bvious  meaning,  therefore,  of  this  important  passage  is,  that 
jGrod  has  publicly  set  forth  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  in  the  sight 

•'  of  the  intelligent  universe,  as  a  propitiatory  sacrifice  for  the 
sins  of  men.  It  is  the  essential  idea  of  such  a  sacrifice,  that  it 
is  a  satisfaction  to  justice.  It  terminates  on  God.  Its  primary 
design  is  not  to  produce  any  subjective  change  in  the  offerer, 
but  to  appease  God.  Such  is  the  meaning  of  the  word,  from 
which  we  have  no  right  to  depart.  Such  also  is  the  idea  which 
it  of  necessity  would  convey  to  every  Gentile  and  every  Jewish 
reader,  and  therefore  such  was  the  idea  which  the  apostle 
intended  to  express.  For  if  we  are  not  to  understand  the 
language  of  the  Bible  in  its  historical  sense,  that  is,  in  the 
sense  in  which  the  sacred  writers  knew  it  would  be  understood 
by  those  to  whom  they  wrote,  it  ceases  to  have  any  determinate 
meaning  whatever,  and  may  be  explained  according  to  the 
private  opinion  of  every  interpreter.  But  if  such  be  the  mean- 
ing of  these  words,  then  they  conclusively  teach  that  the  ground 
of  our  justification  is  no  subjective  change  in  us,  but  the  propi- 
tiatory sacrifice  of  Christ.  Olshausen,  who  elsewhere  plainly 
teaches  the  doctrine  of  subjective  justification,  in  his  comment 
on  this  verse,  admits  the  common  Church  doctrine.  He  denies 
that  the  work  of  Christ  terminates  on  the  sinner.  "Every 
sacrifice,"  he  says,  "proposed  to  expiate  the  guilt  of  man,  and 
to  appease  the  wrath  of  God,  consequently  the  sacrifice  of  all 
sacrifices,  in  which  alone  all  others  have  any  truth,  must 
accomplish  that  which  they  only  symbolized."  The  doctrine 
of  the  Scotists,  he  adds,  of  gratuita  acceptatio,  refutes  itself, 
because  God  can  never  take  a  thing  for  what  it  is  not,  and 


ROMANS  III.  25.  145 

f  ,        ,  .  .        . 

therefore  cannot  accept  as  a  satisfaction  what  is  no  satisfaction. 

Grotius's  view  of  an  acceptilatio,  which  amounts  to  the  same 
thing  with  the  doctrine  of  Scotus,  and  resolves  the  atonement 
into  a  mere  governmental  display,  (a  popular  theory  reproduced 
as  a  novelty  in  the  American  Churches,)  he  also  rejects.  He 
says,  "So  there  remains  nothing  but  the  acute  theory  of 
Anselm,  properly  understood,  of  a  satisfactio  vicaria,  which 
completely  agrees  with  the  teachings  of  Scripture,  and  meets 
the  demands  of  science."*  According  to  Olshausen,  therefore, 
("die  tiefste  Erorterungen,")  the  profoundest  disclosures  of 
modern  science  have  at  last  led  back  to  the  simple  old  doctrine 
of  a  real  vicarious  satisfaction  to  the  justice  of  God,  as  the 
ground  of  the  sinner's  justification. 

Through  faith.  These  words,  dioc  maria)^,  may  be  connected 
with  dixaioujusvoi  as  coordinate  with  dia  d-noXurpcoaeo)^:  '  Being 
justified  through  the  redemption,  that  is,  being  justified  through 
faith.'  But  this  breaks  the  connection  between  Trpoid-evo  and 
£:;  evdec^cv.  Meyer  connects  both  dca  it'taTeax;  and  kv  ruj  alfxazc 
with  Ttpoi&tro:  '  God  hath,  by  means  of  faith,  by  his  blood,  set 
forth  Christ  as  a  propitiation.'  But  the  faith  of  man  is  not  the 
means  by  which  God  set  forth  Christ.  The  most  natural  con-  ^ 
nection  is  with  Uaarrjpiov,  'a  propitiation  through  faith,'  i.  e. 
which  is  received  or  appropriated  through  faith.  It  is  a  more 
doubtful  question  how  the  words  in  his  blood  are  to  be  con- 
nected. The  most  obvious  construction  is  that  adopted  in  our 
version,  as  well  as  in  the  Vulgate,  and  by  Luther,  Calvin, 
Olshausen,  and  many  others,  'Through  faith  in  his  blood;'  so  '-^ 
that  the  blood  of  Christ,  as  a  propitiatory  sacrifice,  is  the 
ground  of  the  confidence  expressed  in  Tcioza;,  "  in  Christi  san- 
guine repositam  habemus  fiduciam."  Oalvin.  To  this  it  is 
objected,  that  the  construction  of  mau^  with  iv  is  altogether 
unauthorized.  But  there  are  so  many  cases  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment in  which  this  construction  must  be  admitted,  unless 
violence  be  resorted  to,  that  this  objection  cannot  be  allowed 
much  weight.  See  Gal.  iii.  26,  Eph.  i.  15,  Col.  i.  4,  1  Tim.  iii.  13, 
2  Tim.  iii.  15.     Others  connect  both  dca  Tziareax;  and  kv  rut 

*  So  bleibt  nur  die  richtig  verstande  hOchst  scharfsinnige  Anselmische 
Theorie  (satisfactio  vicaria)  als  diejenige  iibrig,  die  der  Schriftlehre  eben  so 
sehr  genilgt,  als  den  Ansprilcher  der  Wissenschaft. 

10 


146  ROMANS  III.  25. 

mfiarc  as  distinct  qualifying  clauses  witn  iXaarijpcov;  the  former, 
as  De  Wette  says,  expressing  the  means  of  the  subjective  appro- 
priation, the  other  the  means  of  the  objective  exhibition.  That 
is,  '  God  has  set  forth  Christ  as  a  propitiation,  which  is  availa- 
ble through  faith,  and  he  is  a  propitiation  by  his  blood.'  Still 
another  method  is  to  connect  kv  njj  ai[xaTc  with  ov:  '  Whom  God 
has  set  forth  in  his  blood  as  a  propitiation.'  The  construction 
first  mentioned,  and  sanctioned  by  the  translators  of  the  English 
Bible,  gives  a  perfectly  good  sense,  and  is  most  agreeable  tr- 
the  collocation  of  the  words.  The.  blood  of  Christ  is  an  ex- 
pression used  in  obvious  reference  to  the  sacrificial  characte»* 
of  his  death.  It  was  not  his  death  as  a  wii-ness  or  as  an  exam 
pie,  but  as  a  sacrifice,  that  expiates  sin.  And  by  his  blood,  \i 
not  to  be  understood  simply  his  death,  but  his  whole  work  for 
our  redemption,  especially  all  his  expiatory  sufferings  from  the 
beginning  to  the  end  of  his  life. 

This  whole  passage,  which  Olshausen  happily  calls  the  "Acro- 
polis of  the  Christian  faith,"  is  of  special  importance.  It 
teaches  that  we  are  justified  in  a  manner  which  is  entirely  'of 
grace,  without  any  merit  of  our  own;  through,  or  by  means 
of  faith,  and  on  the  ground  of  the  propitiatory  sacrifice  of  Jesus 
Christ.  It  is  evident  from  this  statement,  that  Paul  intended  to 
exclude  from  all  participation  in  the  meritorious  ground  of  our 
acceptance  with  God,  not  only  those  works  performed  in  obedi- 
ence to  the  law,  and  with  a  legal  spirit,  but  those  which  flow 
from  faith  and  a  renewed  heart.  The  part  assigned  to  faith  in 
the  work  of  our  reconciliation  to  God  is  that  of  an  instrument ; 
it  apprehends  or  appropriates  the  meritorious  ground  of  our 
acceptance,  the  work  or  righteousness  of  Christ.  It  is  not 
itself  that  ground,  nor  the  means  of  attaining  an  inherent 
righteousness  acceptable  to  God.  This  is  obvious,  1.  Because 
our  justification  would  not  then  be  gratuitous,  or  without  works. 
Paul  would  then  teach  the  very  reverse  of  the  doctrine  which 
he  has  been  labouring  to  establish,  viz.  that  it  is  not  on  account 
of  works  of  righteousness,  i.  e.  works  of  the  highest  order  of 
excellence,  that  we  are  accepted,  since  these  works  would  then 
be  the  real  ground  of  our  acceptance.  2.  Because  we  are  said 
to  be  justified  by  faith  of  which  Christ  is  the  object,  by  faith 
in  his  blood,  by  faith  in  him  as  a  sacrifice.     These  expressions 


ROMANS  III.  25.  147 

cannot  possibly  mean,  that  faith  in  Christ  is,  or  produces,  a 
state  of  mind  Avhich  is  acceptable  to  God.  Faith  in  a  sacrifice 
is,  by  the  very  force  of  the  terms,  reliance  on  a  sacrifice.  It 
would  be  to  contradict  the  sentiment  of  the  whole  ancient  and 
Jewish  world,  to  make  the  design  of  a  sacrifice  the  production 
of  a  state  of  mind  acceptable  to  the  Being  worshipped,  which 
moral  state  was  to  be  the  ground  of  acceptance.  There  is  no 
more  pointed  way  of  denying  that  we  are  justified  on  account 
of  the  state  of  our  own  hearts,  or  the  character  of  our  own  acts, 
than  by  saying  that  we  are  justified  by  a  propitiatory  sacri- 
fice. This  latter  declaration  places  of  necessity  the  ground  of 
acceptance  out  of  ourselves ;  it  is  something  done  for  us,  not 
something  experienced,  or  produced  in  us,  or  performed  by  us. 
There  is  no  rule  of  interpretation  more  obvious  and  more 
important  than  that  which  requires  us  to  understand  the  lan- 
guage of  a  writer  in  the  sense  in  which  he  knew  he  would  be 
understood  by  the  persons  to  whom  he  wrote.  To  explain, 
therefore,  the  language  of  the  apostle  in  reference  to  the  sacri- 
fice of  Christ,  and  the  mode  of  our  acceptance  with  God,  other- 
wise than  in  accordance  with  the  universally  prevalent  opinions 
on  the  nature  of  sacrifices,  is  to  substitute  our  philosophy  of 
religion  for  the  inspired  teachings  of  the  sacred  writers. 

To  declare  his  righteousness  for  the  remission  of  sins  that  are 
past,  through  the  forbearance  of  G-od.  Having  stated  the 
nature  and  ground  of  the  gospel  method  of  justification,  Paul 
comes,  in  this  clause,  to  state  its  object :  '  God  has  set  forth 
Christ,  as  a  propitiatory  sacrifice,  to  declare  his  righteousness.' 
It  should  be  remembered  that  the  object  of  the  death  of  Christ, 
being  very  comprehensive,  is  variously  presented  in  the  word 
of  God.  In  other  words,  the  death  of  Christ  answers  a  great 
number  of  infinitely  important  ends  in  the  government  of  God. 
It  displays  "his  manifold  wisdom,"  Eph.  iii.  10,  11;  it  was 
designed  "to  purify  unto  himself  a  people  zealous  of  good 
works,"  Titus  ii.  14;  to  break  down  the  distinction  between  the 
Jews  and  Gentiles,  Eph.  ii.  15 ;  to  efi"ect  the  reconciliation  of 
both  Jews  and  Gentiles  unto  God,  Eph.  ii.  16;  "to  deliver  us 
from  this  present  evil  world,"  Gal.  i.  4;  to  secure  the  forgive- 
ness of  sins,  Eph.  i.  7;  to  vindicate  his  ways  to  men,  in  so  long 
passing  by  or  remitting  their  sins,  Rom.  iii.  25 ;  to  reconcile  the 


148  ROMANS  III.  25. 

exercise  of  mercy  with  the  requirements  of  justice,  ver.  26,  &c. 
These  ends  are  not  inconsistent,  but  perfectly  harmonious. 
The  end  here  specially  mentioned  is,  to  declare  his  righteous- 
ness. These  words  here,  as  elsewhere,  are  variously  explained. 
1.  They  are  understood  of  some  one  of  the  moral  attributes 
of  God,  as  his  veracity,  by  Locke ;  or  his  mercy,  by  Grotius, 
Koppe,  and  many  of  the  moderns.  Both  of  these  interpreta- 
tions are  forced,  because  they  assign  very  unusual  meanings  to 
the  word  righteousness,  and  meanings  little  suited  to  the  con- 
text. 2.  Most  commentators,  who  render  the  phrase  'right- 
eousness, or  justification  of  God,'  in  chap.  i.  17,  iii.  21,  God's 
method  of  justification,  adopt  that  sense  here.  The  meaning 
would  then  be,  that  '  God  had  set  forth  Christ  as  a  propitia- 
tion, to  exhibit  his  method  of  justification,  both  in  reference  to 
the  sins  committed  under  the  old  dispensation,  and  those  com- 
mitted under  the  new.'  But  this  is  inconsistent  with  the 
meaning  of  dcxouoauu/^,  which  never  has  the  sense  of  "method 
of  justification,"  and  is  unsuited  to  the  context.  3.  The  great 
majority  of  commentators  understand  the  dcxaioaui'Tj  deou  here 
spoken  of  to  be  the  justice  of  God,  This  is  the  proper  meaning 
of  the  terms,  and  this  the  context  demands.  Justice  is  the 
attribute  with  which  the  remission,  or  passing  by,  of  sins  with- 
out punishment,  seemed  to  be  in  conflict,  and  which  therefore 
required  vindication.  It  was  necessary  that  the  justice  of  God 
should  be  publicly  exhibited,  because  he  forgave  sin.  Besides, 
the  apostle  himself  explains  what  he  means  by  dcxacoauvrj,  when 
he  adds  that  God  set  forth  Christ  as  a  propitiation,  in  order 
that  he  might  he  just,  and  yet  justify  the  ungodly.  The  satis- 
faction of  justice  therefore  was  the  immediate  and  specific  end 
of  the  death  of  Christ.  This  was  indeed  a  means  to  a  higher 
end.  Justice  was  satisfied,  in  order  that  men  might  be  sancti- 
fied and  saved ;  and  men  are  sanctified  and  saved,  in  order  that 
might  be  known,  in  the  ages  to  come,  the  exceeding  riches  of 
the  grace  of  God. 

For  the  remission  of  sins,  dia  rrjv  Ttdpemv,  x.z.L  This  admits 
of  different  explanations.  1.  Some  give  3ia  with  the  accusa- 
tive the  same  force  as  with  the  genitive ;  through  the  forgive- 
ness of  sins.  That  is,  the  righteousness  of  God  was  manifested 
by  means  of  remitting  sins.     This  is  contrary  to  the  proper 


ROMANS  III.  25.  149 

meaning  of  the  words,  and  supposes  that  bixmoa'jvq  means  good- 
ness. Beza,  however,  adopts  this  view,  and  renders  the  words, 
-per  remissionem;  so  also  Reiche,  Koppe,  and  others.  2.  It  is 
taken  to  mean,  as  to,  as  it  regards.  This  gives  a  good  sense,  ^ 
'  To  declare  his  righteousness,  as  to,  or  as  it  regards  the  remis- 
sion of  sins.'  So  Raphelius,  [Ohservationes,  &c.,  p.  241,)  who 
quotes  Polybius,  Lib.  5,  ch.  24,  p.  517,  in  support  of  this  inter- 
pretation. This  view  is  given  by  Professor  Stuart.  But  the 
preposition  in  question  very  rarely  if  ever  has  this  force.  No 
such  meaning  is  assigned  to  it  by  Wahl,  Bretschneider,  or 
Winer.  3.  The  common  force  of  the  preposition  is  retained, 
on  account  of.  This  clause  would  then  assign  the  ground  or 
reason  of  the  exhibition  of  the  righteousness  of  God.  It  became 
necessary  that  there  should  be  this  exhibition,  because  God  had 
overlooked  or  pardoned  sin  from  the  beginning.  This  is  the 
most  natural  and  satisfactory  interpretation  of  the  passage.  So 
the  Vulgate,  propter  remissionem,  and  almost  all  the  moderns. 
4.  Others  again  make  the  preposition  express  the  final  cause  or 
object,  '  To  declare  his  righteousness  for  the  sake  of  the  remis- 
sion of  sins,'  i.  e.  that  sins  might  be  remitted.  So  Calvin,  who 
says,  "  Tantundem  valet  prcepositio  causalis,  acsi  dixisset, 
remissionis  ergo,  vel  in  hunc  finem  ut  peccata  deleret.  Atque 
haec  definitio  vel  exegesis  rursus  confirmat  quod  jam  aliquoties 
monui,  non  justificari  homines,  quia  re  ipsa  tales  sint,  sed 
imputatione."  But  this  is  a  very  questionable  force  of  the  pre- 
position :  see  Winer  s  Grram.,  §  53,  c.  The  third  interpretation, 
therefore,  just  mentioned,  is  to  be  preferred.  The  word  Tzdpeai^, 
retnission,  more  strictly  means  pretermissio7i,  a  passing  by,  or 
overlooking.  Paul  repeatedly  uses  the  proper  term  for  remis- 
sion {a(peacQ,)  as  in  Eph.  i.  7,  Heb.  ix.  22,  &c.;  but  the  word 
here  used  occurs  nowhere  else  in  the  New  Testament.  Many, 
therefore,  consider  the  selection  of  this  particular  term  as 
designed  to  express  the  idea,  that  sins  committed  before  the 
advent  of  Christ  might  more  properly  be  said  to  be  overlooked, 
than  actually  pardoned,  until  the  sacrifice  of  the  Redeemer  had 
been  completed;  see  Wolf's  Ource.  Reference  is  made  to  Acts 
xvii.  30,  where  God  is  said  to  have  overlooked  the  times  of 
ignorance.  But  as  the  word  used  by  the  apostle  is  actually 
used  to  express  the  idea  of  remission,  in  Greek  writers,  (see 


150  ROMANS  III.  25. 

Eisner,)  the  majority  of  commentators  adopt  that  meaning  here. 
The  words  ndpeacc:  and  d<peac^  express  the  same  thing,  but  under 
diiferent  aspects.  They  differ  only  as  not  punishing,  and  par- 
doning. To  say  that  God  did  not  punish  sins  under  the  old 
dispensation,  is  only  a  different  way  of  saying  that  he  pardoned 
them.  So  "not  to  impute  iniquity"  is  the  negative  statement 
of  justification.  This  passage,  however,  is  one  of  the  few  which 
the  Romanists  quote  in  support  of  their  doctrine  that  there  was 
no  real  pardon,  justification,  or  salvation,  before  the  advent  of 
Christ.  The  ancient  believers  at  death,  according  to  their  doc- 
trine, did  not  pass  into  heaven,  but  into  the  limhus  patrum, 
where  they  continued  in  a  semi-conscious  state  until  Christ's 
descensus  ad  inferos  for  their  deliverance.  The  moden  trans- 
cendental theologians  of  Germany,  who  approach  Romanism  in 
so  many  other  points,  agree  with  the  Papists  also  here.  Thus 
Olshausen  says,  "  Under  the  Old  Testament  there  was  no  real, 
but  only  a  symbolical  forgiveness  of  sins."  Our  Lord,  however, 
speaks  of  Abraham  as  in  heaven ;  and  the  Psalms  are  filled 
with  petitions  and  thanksgiving  for  God's  pardoning  mercy. 

The  words,  that  are  past,  seem  distinctly  to  refer  to  the  times 
before  the  advent  of  Christ.  This  is  plain  from  their  opposition 
to  the  expression,  at  this  time,  in  the  next  verse,  and  from  a 
comparison  with  the  parallel  passage  in  Heb.  ix.  15,  "  He  is  the 
Mediator  for  the  redemption  of  sins  that  were  under  the  first 
testament."  The  words  iv  z^  ^^^Xfii  rendered  through  the  for- 
bearance of  Crod,  admit  of  different  explanations.  1.  They  may 
\>e  connected  with  the  words  just  mentioned,  and  the  meaning 
be,  '  Sins  that  are  past,  or,  which  were  committed  during  the 
forbearance  of  God;'  see  Acts  xvii.  20,  where  the  times  before 
the  advent  are  described  in  much  the  same  manner.  2.  Or  they 
may  be  taken,  as  by  our  translators,  as  giving  the  cause  of  the 
remission  of  these  sins,  'They  were  remitted,  or  overlooked 
through  the  divine  forbearance  or  mercy.'  Forgiveness  however 
is  always  referred  to  grace,  not  to  forbearance.  The  former 
interpretation  is  also  better  suited  to  the  context.  The  mean- 
ing of  the  whole  verse  therefore  is,  '  God  has  set  forth  Jesus 
Christ  as  a  propitiatory  sacrifice,  to  vindicate  his  righteousness 
or  justice,  on  account  of  the  remission  of  the  sins  committed 
under   the   former  dispensation;'    and   not   under  the  former 


ROMANS  III.  26.  151 

dispensation  only,  but  also  in  the  remission  of  sins  at  the  pre- 
sent time,  as  the  apostle  immediately  adds.  The  interpretation 
of  the  latter  part  of  this  verse,  given  above,  according  to  which 
xa  TtpoysYOVora  6.ixapTi^fxaza,  (the  sins  before  committed,)  mean 
the  sins  committed  before  the  coming  of  Christ,  is  that  which 
both  the  context  and  the  analogy  of  Scripture  demand.  In  the 
early  Church,  however,  there  were  some  who  held  that  there  is 
no  forgiveness  for  post-baptismal  sins — a  doctrine  recently 
reproduced  in  England  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Pusey.  The  advocates 
of  this  doctrine  make  this  passage  teach  that  Christ  was  set 
forth  as  a  propitiation  for  the  forgiveness  of  sins  committed 
before  baptism,  that  is,  before  conversion  or  the  professed 
adoption  of  the  gospel.  RUckert  and  Reiche,  among  the  recent 
German  writers,  give  the  same  interpretation.  This  would 
alter  the  whole  chai-acter  of  the  gospel.  There  could  be  no 
salvation  for  any  human  being ;  for  all  men  sin  hourly,  after  as 
well  as  before  baptism  or  conversion.  No  man  at  any  moment 
of  his  life  is  perfectly  conformed  to  the  law  of  God.  Conscience 
always  pronounces  sentence  against  us.  There  could  be  no 
peace  in  believing,  no  imputation  or  possession  of  righteousness. 
We  should  not  now  be  under  grace,  but  under  law,  as  com- 
pletely as  though  Christ  had  never  died. 

Verse  26.  To  declare,  I  say,  his  righteousness,  &c.  This 
clause  is  a  resumption  of  what  was  said  before,  npoi;  ei^dsc^iu 
being  coordinate  with  the  foregoing  erV  ivds.c^cu,  both  depending 
upon  TTpoi&ezo:  'He  set  him  forth  ere  and — Tipo^.'  The  two 
prepositions  have  the  same  sense,  as  both  express  the  design  or 
object  for  which  anything  is  done :  '  Christ  was  set  forth  as  a 
sacrifice  for  the  manifestation  of  the  righteousness  of  God,  on 
account  of  the  remission  of  the  sins  of  old — for  the  manifesta- 
tion of  his  righteousness  at  this  time.'  There  were  two  pur- 
poses to  be  answered ;  the  vindication  of  the  character  of  God 
in  passing  by  former  sins,  and  in  passing  them  by  now.  The 
words  cv  z(Z  uw  xacp(p,  [at  this  time,)  therefore  stand  opposed 
to  iv  rfj  o.\Joy7i,  [during  the  forbearance.)  The  death  of  Christ 
vindicated  the  justice  of  God  in  forgiving  sin  in  all  ages  of  the 
world,  as  those  sins  were  by  the  righteous  God,  as  Olshausen 
says,  "punished  in  Christ." 

That  he  might  be  just,  &c..  dz  rb  elvac  auzbv  Scxmov,  in  order 


152  ROMANS  III.  26. 

that,  as  expressing  the  design,  and  not  merely  the  result  of  the 
exhibition  of  Christ  as  a  propitiatory  sacrifice.  This  clause 
therefore  expresses  more  definitely  what  is  meant  by  ere  ivdtc^iu 
bumoauvTfi.  Christ  was  set  forth  as  a  sacrifice  for  the  mani- 
festation of  the  righteousness  or  justice  of  God,  that  is,  that  he 
might  be  just,  although  the  justifier  of  the  ungodly.  The  word 
ju%t  expresses  the  idea  of  uprightness  generally,  of  being  or 
doing  what  the  nature  of  the  case  demands.  But  when  spoken 
of  the  conduct  of  a  judge,  and  in  reference  to  his  treatment  of 
sin,  it  must  mean  more  specifically  that  modification  of  general 
rectitude,  which  requires  that  sin  should  be  treated  according 
to  its  true  nature,  that  the  demands  of  law  or  justice  should  not 
be  disregarded.  A  judge  is  unjust  when  he  allows  a  criminal 
to  be  pronounced  righteous,  and  treated  accordingly.  On  the 
other  hand,  he  acts  justly  when  he  pronounces  the  ofi"euder 
guilty,  and  secures  the  infliction  of  the  penalty  which  the  law 
denounces.  What  the  apostle  means  to  say  is,  that  there  is  no 
such  disregard  to  the  claims  of  justice  in  the  justification  of  the 
sinner  who  believes  in  Christ.  This  is  seen  and  acknoAvledged, 
when  it  is  known  that  he  is  justified  neither  on  account  of  his 
own  acts  or  character,  nor  by  a  mere  sovereign  dispensing  with 
the  demands  of  the  law,  but  on  the  ground  of  a  complete  satis- 
faction rendered  by  his  substitute,  i.  e.  on  the  ground  of  the 
obedience  and  death  of  Christ.  The  gratuitous  nature  of  this 
justification  is  not  at  all  affected  by  its  proceeding  on  the 
ground  of  this  perfect  satisfaction.  It  is,  to  the  sinner,  still  the 
most  undeserved  of  all  favours,  to  which  he  not  only  has  not  the 
shadow  of  a  personal  claim,  but  the  very  reverse  of  which  he 
has  most  richly  merited.  It  is  thus  that  justice  and  mercy  are 
harmoniously  united  in  the  sinner's  justification.  Justice  is  no 
less  justice,  although  mercy  has  her  perfect  work ;  and  mercy 
is  no  less  mercy,  although  justice  is  completely  satisfied. 

'Just  and  the  justifier,'  &c.  In  the  simple  language  of  the 
Old  Testament,  propositions  and  statements  are  frequently  con- 
nected by  the  copulative  conjunction  whose  logical  relation 
would  be  more  definitely  expressed  by  various  particles  in  other 
languages;  as  Malachi  ii.  14,  "Against  whom  thou  hast  dealt 
treacherously,  and  she  was  thy  companion,"  i.  e.  although  she 
was  thy  companion.    "  They  spake  in  my  name,  and  (although) 


ROMANS  III.  26.  153 

I  sent  them  not;"  see  G-eseniuss  Lexicon.  In  like  manner  the 
corresponding  particle  in  the  Greek  Testament  is  used  with 
scarcely  less  latitude.  Matt.  xii.  5,  "  The  priests  profane  the 
Sabbath,  and  (and  yet)  are  blameless;"  Rom.  i.  13,  "I  pur- 
posed to  come  unto  you,  and  (but)  was  let  hitherto;"  Heb. 
iii.  9,  "Proved  me,  and  (although  thei/)  saw  my  works;"  see 
WahVs  Lex.  and  Winers  G-ram.,  §  57.  So  in  the  present 
instance  it  may  be  rendered,  "That  God  might  be  just,  and 
yet,  or  although  the  justifier,"  &c.  Him  which  helieveth  in 
Jesus,  literally,  'Him  who  is  of  the  faith  of  Jesus;"  so  Gal. 
ii.  7,  "They  which  are  of  faith,"  for  believers;  Gal.  ii.  12, 
"They  of  the  circumcision,"  i.  e.  the  circumcised;  see  Rom. 
ii.  8,  iv.  12,  &c.  Faith  of  Jesus,  fai^tli_j2f-JsJii^ih--«kais_iMte 
oty£fiLi  see  ver.  22.  Our  version  therefore  expresses  the  sense 
accurately.  He  whom  God  is  just  in  justifying,  is  the  man  who 
relies  on  Jesus  as  a  propitiatory  sacrifice.  That  justification  is 
a  forensic  act,  is  of  necessity  implied  in  this  passage.  If  to 
justify  was  to  make  subjectively  just  or  righteous,  what  neces- 
sity was  there  for  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  ?  Why  should  he  die, 
in  order  that  it  might  be  just  in  God  to  render  men  holy  ?  It 
were  an  act  of  mercy  to  make  the  vilest  malefactor  good ;  but 
to  justify  such  a  malefactor  would  be  to  trample  justice  under 
foot.  The  doctrine  therefore  of  subjective  justification  perverts 
the  whole  gospel.  It  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  the  orthodox 
interpretation  of  the  meaning  of  this  whole  paragraph  is 
acknowledged  to  be  correct,  even  by  those  who  cannot  them- 
selves receive  the  doctrine  which  it  teaches.  Thus  Kollner,  one 
of  the  latest  and  most  candid  of  the  German  commentators, 
says :  "  It  is  clear  that  the  true  sense  of  this  passage  entirely 
agrees  with  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  concerning  vicarious 
satisfaction,  as  unfolded  in  the  Lutheran  symbols.  Neverthe- 
less, although  it  is  certain  that  Paul  intended  to  teach  the  doc- 
trine of  vicarious  satisfaction,  not  merely  as  a  figure,  (or  in  the 
way  of  accommodation,)  but  as  a  matter  of  full  personal  con- 
viction; yet  it  is  easy  to  see  how  he  was  necessarily  led  to 
adopt  this  view,  from  the  current  opinions  of  the  age  in  vli:  'h 
he  lived."  He  proceeds  to  show  that  as  the  idea  of  vicariouij' 
punishment  was  incorporated  in  the  Jewish  theology,  the  guilt 
of  the  ofi"ender  being  laid  upon  the  head  of  the  victim  ofi"ered  in 


154  ROMANS  III.  27. 

sacrifice,  Paul  was  unavoidably  led  to  conceive  of  the  work  of 
Christ  under  this  form.  As,  however,  this  theory,  according 
to  Kollner,  arose  out  of  a  false  view  of  the  nature  of  God,  and 
of  his  relation  to  the  world,  he  cannot  regard  it  as  a  divine 
revelation.  He  proceeds  to  unfold  what  he  supposes  to  be 
the  eternal  truth  contained  under  these  Jewish  ideas,  (unter 
der  Hiille  der  Zeitvorstellungen,)  and  presents  very  much  the 
governmental  view  of  the  atonement  introduced  by  Grotius,  and 
reproduced  in  this  country  by  the  younger  Edwards  and  his 
followers.  "Did  Paul,"  says  Kollner,  "merely  teach  that  God 
made  a  symbolical  exhibition  of  justice  in  the  sufferings  of 
Christ,  we  might  acquiesce  in  his  teaching,  but  he  says  more ; 
he  constantly  asserts  that  men  are  justified  or  constituted  right- 
eous through  the  blood  of  Christ,  iii.  21,  v.  19,  Eph.  i.  7,  Col. 
i.  14."  Such  writers  are  at  least  free  from  the  guilt  of  per- 
verting the  word  of  God.  They  allow  the  Bible  to  mean  what 
it  says,  although  they  refuse  to  submit  to  its  teaching.  This  is 
better  than  not  only  refusing  to  submit,  but  forcing  the  Scrip- 
tures to  teach  our  own  foregone  conclusions.  In  Germany,  the 
subjection  of  the  Bible  to  philosophy  has  come  to  an  end.  In 
this  country,  it  is  still  struggling  for  liberty.  It  is  desirable 
that  the  separation  should  here,  as  there,  be  made  complete, 
between  those  who  bow  to  the  authority  of  the  word  of  God, 
and  those  who  acknowledge  some  higher  rule  of  faith.  Then 
both  parties  can  agree  as  to  what  the  Bible  really  teaches. 

Verse  27.  Where  is  boasting  then?  It  is  excluded.  By 
what  law  ?  of  works  ?  Nay;  hut  by  the  law  of  faith.  In  this 
and  the  following  verses  the  apostle  presents  the  tendency  and 
results  of  the  glorious  plan  of  salvation,  which  he  had  just 
unfolded.  It  excludes  boasting,  ver.  27.  It  presents  God  in 
his  true  character,  as  the  God  and  Father  of  the  Gentiles  as  well 
as  of  the  Jews,  vs.  29,  30 ;  and  it  establishes  the  law,  ver.  31. 
NThe  word  xauyrjact:  {boasting,)  is  used  to  express  the  idea  of  self- 
I  gratulation  with  or  without  suflicient  reason.  In  the  former 
case,  it  is  properly  rendered  rejoicing,  as  when  Paul  speaks  of 
the  Thessalonians  being  his  "crown  of  rejoicing."  In  the 
latter,  the  word  boasting  is  the  correct  version.  The  word 
properly  means  the  act  of  boasting  or  rejoicing;  at  times,  by 
metonymy,  the  ground  or  reason  of  boasting,  as  in  Rom.  xv.  17. 


ROMANS  III.  28.  155 

Either  sense  suits  this  passage.  The  article  ^  xauyrjan::,  the 
boasting,  may  have  its  appropriate  force.  The  reference  how- 
ever is  not  specially  to  ver.  1  of  this  chapter,  the  boasting  of 
the  Jews  over  the  Gentiles,  but  the  boasting  of  the  sinner  before 
God.  The  latter  however  includes  the  former.  A  plan  of  sal- 
vation which  strips  every  man  of  merit,  and  places  all  sinners 
on  the  same  level  before  God,  of  course  cuts  off  all  assumption 
of  superiority  of  one  class  over  another.  Paul  means  to  say 
that  the  result  of  the  gospel  plan  of  salvation  is  to  prevent  all 
self-approbation,  self-gratulation  and  exaltation  on  the  part  of 
the  sinner.  He  is  presented  as  despoiled  of  all  merit,  and  as 
deserving  the  displeasure  of  God.  He  can  attribute,  in  no 
degree,  his  deliverance  from  this  displeasure  to  himself,  and  he 
cannot  exalt  himself  either  in  the  presence  of  God,  or  in  com- 
parison with  his  fellow-sinners.  As  sin  is  odious  in  the  sight 
of  God,  it  is  essential,  in  any  scheme  of  mercy,  that  the  sinner 
should  be  made  to  feel  this,  and  that  nothing  done  by  or  for  him 
should  in  any  measure  diminish  his  sense  of  personal  ill-desert 
on  account  of  his  transgressions.  This  result  obviously  could 
not  follow  from  any  plan  of  justification  that  placed  the  ground 
of  the  sinner's  acceptance  in  himself,  or  his  peculiar  advantages 
of  birth  or  ecclesiastical  connection ;  but  it  is  effectually  secured 
by  that  plan  of  justification  which  not  only  places  the  ground 
of  his  acceptance  entirely  out  of  himself,  but  which  also  requires, 
as  the  very  condition  of  that  acceptance,  an  act  involving  a 
penitent  acknowledgment  of  personal  ill-desert,  and  exclusive 
dependence  on  the  merit  of  another.  In  this  connection,  the 
phrases  "by  what  law,"  "the  law  of  works,"  and  "the  law  of 
faith,"  are  peculiar,  as  the  word  vo/ioc  (law)  is  not  used  in  its 
ordinary  sense.  The  general  idea,  however,  of  a  rule  of  action 
is  retained.  '  By  what  rule  ?  By  that  which  requires  works  ? 
Nay;  by  that  which  requires  faith.'  By  the  "law  of  faith," 
therefore,  is  obviously  meant  the  gospel.    Compare  ix.  31. 

Verse  28.  Therefore  we  conclude,  &c.  The  common  text 
has  ouv,  therefore,  giving  this  verse  the  character  of  a  conclu- 
sion from  the  preceding  argument.  The  great  majority,  how- 
ever, of  the  best  manuscripts,  the  Vulgate  and  Coptic  versions, 
and  many  of  the  Fathers,  have  ydp,  which  almost  all  the  modern 
editors  adopt.     This  verse  then  is  a  confirmation  of  what  is  said 


156  ROMANS  III.  28. 

before:  'Boasting  is  excluded,  Xoyi^o/ied-a  ydp,  for  we  think, 
i.  e.  are  sure,'  &c.  See  ii.  3,  viii.  18,  2  Cor.  xi.  5,  for  a  similar 
use  of  the  word  ^.oyc^o/icu.  That  a  man  is  Justified  hy  faith. 
If  by  faith,  it  is  not  of  works ;  and  if  not  of  works,  there  can 
be  no  room  for  boasting,  for  boasting  is  the  assertion  of  per- 
sonal merit.  From  the  nature  of  the  case,  if  justification  is  by 
faith,  it  must  be  by  faith  alone.  Luther's  version,  therefore, 
allein  durch  den  glauhen,  is  fully  justified  by  the  context.  The 
Romanists,  indeed,  made  a  great  outcry  against  that  version  as 
a  gross  perversion  of  Scripture,  although  Catholic  translators 
before  the  time  of  Luther  had  given  the  same  translation.  So 
in  the  Nuremberg  Bible,  1483,  "Nur  durch  den  glauben." 
And  the  Italian  Bibles  of  Geneva,  1476,  and  of  Venice,  1538, 
per  sola  fede.  The  Fathers  also  often  use  the  expression, 
"man  is  justified  by  faith  alone ;"  so  that  Erasmus,  De  Ratione 
Concionandi,  Lib.  III.,  says,  "  Vox  sola,  tot  clamoribus  lapi- 
data  hoc  sseculo  in  Luthero,  reverenter  in  Patribus  auditur." 
See  Koppe  and  Tholuck  on  this  verse. 
I,  Without  works  of  the  laiv.  To  be  justified  without  works,  is 
If  to  be  justified  without  anything  in  ourselves  to  merit  justifica- 
tion. The  works  of  the  law  must  be  the  works  of  the  moral 
law,  because  the  proposition  is  general,  embracing  Gentiles  as 
well  as  Jews.  And  as  our  Saviour  teaches  that  the  sum  of  the 
moral  law  is  that  we  should  love  God  with  all  the  heart,  mind, 
and  strength,  and  our  neighbour  as  ourselves,  and  as  no  higher 
form  of  excellence  than  supreme  love  to  God  is  possible  or  con- 
ceivable, in  excluding  works  of  the  law,  the  apostle  excludes 
everything  subjective.  He  places  the  ground  of  justification 
out  of  ourselves.  Olshausen,  on  this  verse,  reverts  to  his 
Romish  idea  of  subjective  justification,  and  explains  works  of 
the  law  to  mean  works  produced  by  the  moral  law,  which  he 
says  spring  only  from  ourselves,  and  are  perishable,  whereas 
"the  works  of  faith  are  imperishable  as  the  principle  whence 
they  spring."  That  is,  we  are  not  justified  by  works  performed 
from  a  principle  of  natural  conscience,  but  by  those  which  are 
the  fruits  of  a  renewed  nature.  How  utterly  subversive  this  is 
of  the  gospel,  has  already  been  remarked.  The  works  of  the 
law  are  not  works  which  the  law  produces,  but  works  which  the 
law  demands,  and  the  law  demands  all  that  the  Spirit  of  God 


ROMANS  III.  29,  30.  157 

effects,  even  in  the  just  made  perfect.  And  therefore  spiritual 
as  well  as  legal  works  are  excluded.  The  contrast  is  not 
between  works  produced  by  the  law  and  works  produced  by 
faith,  but  between  works  and  faith,  between  what  is  done  by 
us  (whether  in  a  state  of  nature  or  a  state  of  grace)  and  what 
Christ  has  done  for  us. 

Verses  29,  30.  Is  he  the  G-od  of  the  Jews  only?  is  he  not 
also  of  the  Grentiles?  Yes,  of  the  G-entiles  also;  seeing  it  is 
one  G-od  who  shall  justify,  &c.  We  have  here  the  second  result 
of  the  gospel  method  of  justification;  it  presents  God  as 
equally  the  God  of  the  Gentiles  and  of  the  Jews.  He  is  such, 
because  'it  is  one  God  who  justifies  the  circumcision  by  faith, 
and  the  uncircumcision  through  faith.'  He  deals  with  both 
classes  on  precisely  the  same  principles;  he  pursues,  with 
regard  to  both,  the  same  plan,  and  offers  salvation  to  both  on 
exactly  the  same  terms.  There  is,  therefore,  in  this  doctrine, 
the  foundation  laid  for  a  universal  religion,  which  may  be 
preached  to  every  creature  under  heaven ;  which  need  not,  as 
was  the  case  with  the  Jewish  system,  be  confined  to  any  one 
sect  or  nation.  This  is  the  only  doctrine  which  suits  the  cha- 
racter of  God,  and  his  relation  to  all  his  intelligent  creatures 
upon  earth.  God  is  a  universal,  and  not  a  national  God ;  and 
this  is  a  method  of  salvation  universally  applicable.  These 
sublime  truths  are  so  familiar  to  our  minds  that  they  have,  in  a 
measure,  lost  their  power ;  but  as  to  the  Jew,  enthralled  all  his 
life  in  his  narrow  national  and  religious  prejudices,  they  must 
have  expanded  his  whole  soul  with  unwonted  emotions  of 
wonder,  gratitude,  and  joy.  We  Gentiles  may  now  look  up  to 
heaven,  and  confidently  say,  "Thou  art  our  Father,  though 
Abraham  be  ignorant  of  us,  and  though  Israel  acknowledge  us 
not." 

Paul  here,  as  in  ver.  20,  uses  the  future,  dcxacwaec,  will 
justify,  not  for  the  present,  nor  in  reference  to  the  final  judg- 
ment, but  as  expressing  a  permanent  purpose.  There  is  no 
distinction  as  to  the  meaning  to  be  sought  between  ix  niazso)^ 
{by  faith)  and  dca  mareco^  {through  faith,)  as  Paul  uses  both 
forms  indiscriminately;  ex,  for  example,  in  i.  17,  iii.  20,  iv. 
16,  &c.,  and  ded  in  iii.  22,  25,  Gal.  ii.  16,  and  sometimes  first 
the  one,  and  then  the  other,  in  the  same  connection.     There  ia 


158  ROMANS  III.  31. 

no  greater  difference  between  the  Greek  prepositions,  as  here 
used,  than  between  the  English  hy  and  through. 

Verse  31.  Do  we  then  make  void  the  law  through  faith? 
Grod  forbid:  yea,  we  establish  the  law.  This  verse  states  the 
third  result  of  this  method  of  salvation ;  instead  of  invalidating, 
it  establishes  the  law.  As  Paul  uses  the  word  law  in  so  many 
senses,  it  is  doubtful  which  one  of  them  is  here  principally 
intended.  In  every  sense,  however,  the  declaration  is  true. 
If  the  law  means  the  Old  Testament  generally,  then  it  is  true ; 
for  the  gospel  method  of  justification  contradicts  no  one  of  its 
statements,  is  inconsistent  with  no  one  of  its  doctrines,  and 
invalidates  no  one  of  its  promises,  but  is  harmonious  with  all, 
and  confirmatory  of  the  whole.  If  it  means  the  Mosaic  insti- 
tutions specially,  these  were  shadows  of  which  Christ  is  the 
substance.  That  law  is  abolished,  not  by  being  pronounced 
spurious  or  invalid,  but  by  having  met  its  accomplishment,  and 
answered  its  design  in  the  gospel.  What  it  taught  and  promised, 
the  gospel  also  teaches  and  promises,  only  in  clearer  and  fuller 
measure.  If  it  means  the  moral  law,  which  no  doubt  was  pro- 
minently intended,  still  it  is  not  invalidated,  but  established. 
No  moral  obligation  is  weakened,  no  penal  sanction  disregarded. 
The  precepts  are  enforced  by  new  and  stronger  motives,  and  the 
penalty  is  answered  in  Him  who  bore  our  sins  in  his  own  body 
on  the  tree.  "Ubi  vero  ad  Christum  ventum  est,"  says  Calvin, 
"primum  in  eo  invenitur  exacta  Legis  justitia,  quae  per  imputa- 
tionem  etiam  nostra  fit.  Deinde  sanctificatio,  qua  formantur 
corda  nostra  ad  Legis  observationem,  imperfectam  quidem  illam, 
sed  ad  scopum  coUimat."  Instead  of  making  ver.  31  the  close 
of  the  third  chapter,  many  commentators  regard  it  as  more 
properly  the  beginning  of  the  fourth.  The  proposition  that  the 
gospel,  instead  of  invalidating,  establishes  the  law,  they  say  is 
too  important  to  be  dismissed  with  a  mere  categorical  assertion. 
This,  however,  is  Paul's  method.  After  showing  that  the  law 
cannot  save,  that  both  justification  and  sanctification  are  by  the 
gospel,  he  is  wont  to  state  in  a  sentence  what  is  the  true  end 
of  the  law,  or  that  the  law  and  the  gospel  being  both  from  God, 
but  designed  for  different  ends,  are  not  in  conflict.  See  above, 
ver.  20,  Gal.  iii.  19,  20.  If  this  verse,  however,  be  made 
the  beginning   of  the   exhibition   contained  in  the   following 


ROMANS  III.  21—31.  159 

chapter,  then  by  law  must  be  understood  the  Old  Testament, 
and  the  confirmation  of  the  law  by  the  gospel  consists  in  the 
fact  that  the  latter  teaches  the  same  doctrine  as  the  former. 
'  Do  we  make  void  the  law  by  teaching  that  justification  is  by 
faith  ?  By  no  means :  we  establish  the  law ;  for  the  Old  Testa- 
ment itself  teaches  that  Abraham  and  David  were  justified 
gratuitously  by  faith,  and  without  works.'  Although  the  sense 
is  thus  good,  there  does  not  appear  to  be  any  sufficient  reason 
for  departing  from  the  common  division  of  the  chapters.  The 
next  chapter  is  not  connected  with  this  verse  by  ydp,  which 
the  sense  would  demand,  if  the  connection  was  what  Meyer, 
Dc  Wette,  and  others  would  make  it :  '  We  establish  the  law 
when  we  teach  faith,  for  Abraham  was  justified  by  faith.'  The 
connecting  particle  is  simply  o«5v,  then,  and  gives  a  very  dif- 
ferent sense.  Besides,  it  is  a  very  subordinate  object  with  the 
apostle  to  prove  that  the  law  and  the  gospel  agree.  His  design 
is  to  teach  the  true  method  of  justification.  The  cases  of  Abra- 
ham and  David  are  referred  to,  to  prove  his  doctrine  on  that 
point,  and  not  merely  the  agreement  between  the  old  dispensa- 
tion and  the  new. 

DOCTRINE. 

1.  The  evangelical  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  is  the 
doctrine  of  the  Old,  no  less  than  of  the  New  Testament,  ver.  21. 

2.  Justification  is  pronouncing  one  to  be  just,  and  treating 
him  accordingly,  on  the  ground  that  the  demands  of  the  law 
have  been  satisfied  concerning  him,  vs.  24 — 26. 

•3.  The  ground  of  justification  is  not  our  own  merit,  nor  faith, 
nor  evangelical  obedience ;  not  the  work  of  Christ  in  us,  but  his 
work  for  us,  i.  e.  his  obedience  unto  death,  ver.  25. 

4.  An  act  may  be  perfectly  gratuitous  as  regards  its  object, 
and  at  the  same  time  proceed  on  the  ground  of  a  complete 
satisfaction  to  the  demands  of  the  law.  Thus  justification  is 
gratuitous,  not  because  those  demands  are  unsatisfied,  but 
because  it  is  granted  to  those  who  have  no  personal  ground  of 
recommendation,  vs.  24,  26 

5.  God  is  the  ultimate  end  of  all  his  own  acts.  To  declare 
his  glory  is  the  highest  and  best  end  which  he  can  propose  for 
himself  or  his  creatures,  ver.  25. 


160  ROMANS  III.  21-31. 

6.  The  atonement  does  not  consist  in  a  display  to  others  of 
the  divine  justice.  This  is  one  of  its  designs  and  results ;  but 
it  is  such  a  display  only  by  being  a  satisfaction  to  the  justice 
of  God.  It  is  not  a  symbol  or  illustration,  but  a  satisfac- 
tion, ver,  26. 

7.  All  true  doctrine  tends  to  humble  men,  and  to  exalt 
God;  and  all  true  religion  is  characterized  by  humility  and 
reverence,  ver.  27. 

8.  God  is  a  universal  Father,  and  all  men  are  brethren, 
vs.  29,  30. 

9.  The  law  of  God  is  immutable.  Its  precepts  are  always 
binding,  and  its  penalty  must  be  inflicted  either  on  the  sinner 
or  his  substitute.  When,  however,  it  is  said  that  the  penalty 
of  the  law  is  inflicted  on  the  Redeemer,  as  the  sinner's  substi- 
tute, or,  in  the  language  of  Scripture,  that  "he  was  made  a 
curse  for  us,"  it  cannot  be  imagined  that  he  suffered  the  same 
kind  of  evils  (as  remorse,  &c.)  which  the  sinner  would  have  suf- 
fered. The  law  threatens  no  specific  kind  of  evil  as  its  penalty. 
The  term  death,  in  Scripture,  designates  any  or  all  of  the  evils 
inflicted  in  punishment  of  sin.  And  the  penalty,  or  curse  of 
the  law,  (in  the  language  of  the  Bible,)  is  any  evil  judicially 
inflicted  in  satisfaction  of  the  demands  of  justice.  To  say, 
therefore,  that  Christ  suffered  to  satisfy  the  law,  to  declare 
the  righteousness  of  God,  or  that  he  might  be  just  in  justifying 
him  that  believes  in  Jesus,  and  to  say  that  he  bore  the  penalty 
of  the  law,  are  equivalent  expressions,  ver.  31. 


REMARKS. 

1.  As  the  cardinal  doctrine  of  the  Bible  is  justification  by 
faith,  so  the  turning  point  in  the  soul's  history,  the  saving  act, 
is  the  reception  of  Jesus  Christ  as  the  propitiation  for  our 
sins,  ver.  25. 

2.  All  modes  of  preaching  must  be  erroneous,  which  do  not 
lead  sinners  to  feel  that  the  great  thing  to  be  done,  and  done 
first,  is  to  receive  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  to  turn  unto 
God  through  him.  And  all  religious  experience  must  be  de 
fective,  which  does  not  embrace  distinctly  a  sense  of  the  justice 
of  our  condemnation,   and  a  conviction  of  the   sufficiency  of 


ROMANS  IV.  1— IT.  161 

the  work  of  Christ,  and  an  exclusive  reliance  upon  it  as  such, 
ver.  25. 

3.  As  God  purposes  his  own  glory  as  the  end  of  all  that  he 
does,  so  ought  we  to  have  that  glory  as  the  constant  and  com- 
manding object  of  pursuit,  ver,  25. 

4.  The  doctrine  of  atonement  produces  in  us  its  proper  effect, 
when  it  leads  us  to  see  and  feel  that  God  is  just ;  that  he  is 
infinitely  gracious ;  that  we  are  deprived  of  all  ground  of  boast- 
ing ;  that  the  way  of  salvation,  which  is  open  for  us,  is  open 
for  all  men ;  and  that  the  motives  to  all  duty,  instead  of  being 
weakened,  are  enforced  and  multiplied,  vs.  25 — 31. 

5.  In  the  gospel  all  is  harmonious :  justice  and  mercy,  as  it 
regards  God ;  freedom  from  the  law,  and  the  strongest  obliga- 
tions to  obedience,  as  it  regards  men,  vs.  25,  31. 


CHAPTER    IV. 

CONTENTS. 

The  object  of  this  chapter  is  to  confirm  the  doctrine  of  justifi- 
cation by  faith.  It  is  divided  into  two  parts.  The  first,  from 
ver.  1  to  17  inclusive,  contains  the  argumentative  portion.  The 
second,  ver.  18  to  25,  is  an  illustration  of  the  faith  of  Abraham. 


ROMANS  IV.  1—17. 

ANALYSIS. 

Paul,  from  the  21st  verse  of  the  preceding  chapter,  had  been 
setting  forth  the  gospel  method  of  salvation.  That  this  is  the 
true  method  he  now  proves,  1.  From  the  fact  that  Abraham 
was  justified  by  faith,  vs.  1 — 5.  That  this  was  really  the  case 
he  shows,  first,  because  otherwise  Abraham  would  have  had 
ground  of  boasting,  even  in  the  sight  of  God,  ver.  2 ;  second, 
because  the  Scriptures  expressly  declare  that  he  was  justified 
by  faith,  ver.  8.  Verses  4,  5,  are  designed  to  show  that  being 
11 


162  ROMANS  IV.  1. 

justified  by  faith  is  tantamount  with  being  justified  gratu- 
itously, and  therefore  all  those  passages  which  speak  of  the 
gratuitous  forgiveness  of  sins  may  be  fairly  cited  in  favour  of 
the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith.  2.  On  this  principle  he 
adduces  Ps.  xxxii.  1,  2,  as  his  second  argument;  for  there 
David  speaks  not  of  rewarding  the  righteous  as  such,  or  for 
their  righteousness,  but  of  the  free  acceptance  of  the  unworthy, 
vs.  6 — 8.  3.  The  third  argument  is  designed  to  show  that  cir- 
cumcision is  not  a  necessary  condition  of  justification,  from  the 
fact  that  Abraham  was  justified  before  he  was  circumcised,  and 
therefore  is  the  head  and  father  of  all  believers,  whether  cir- 
cumcised or  not,  vs.  9 — 12.  4.  The  fourth  argument  is  from 
the  nature  of  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham,  in  which  the 
promise  was  made  on  the  condition  of  faith,  and  not  of  legal 
obedience,  vs.  13,  14.  5.  And  the  fifth,  from  the  nature  of  the 
law,  vs.  15 — 17. 

COMMENTARY. 

Verse  1.  What  shall  we  then  say  that  Abraham,  our  father 
as  pertaining  to  the  flesh,  hath  found?  The  connection  of  this 
verse  with  the  preceding  train  of  reasoning  is  obvious.  Paul 
had  taught  that  we  are  justified  by  faith ;  as  well  in  confirma- 
tion of  this  doctrine,  as  to  anticipate  an  objection  from  the  Jew, 
he  refers  to  the  case  of  Abraham:  'How  was  it  then  with 
Abraham?  How  did  he  obtain  justification?'  The  point  in 
dispute  was,  how  justification  is  to  be  attained.  Paul  proposes 
to  decide  the  question  by  reference  to  a  case  about  which  no 
one  could  doubt.  All  admitted  that  Abraham  was  justified. 
The  only  question  was.  How?  The  particle  ohv,  therefore,  is 
not  inferential,  but  simply  indicates  transition.  What  then 
shall  we  say  about  Abraham?  In  the  question,  however,  zi 
GUV  kpoufxzv,  x.T.k.  the  zc  belongs  to  euprjxsuac:  '  What  shall  we 
say  that  Abraham  hath  found?'  i.  e.  attained.  The  words 
xazd  ffdpxa  do  not  belong  to  nazepa,  '  our  father  according  to 
the  flesh,'  but  to  the  preceding  infinitive,  zbprpckvcu,  'what  hath 
he  attained  through  the  flesh?'  Although  the  question  is  inde- 
finite, the  connection  shows  that  Paul  meant  to  ask  whether 
Abraham  secured  justification  before  God,  xaza  adpxa,  through 


ROMANS  IV.  2.  163 

the  Jlesh.  The  word  Jlesh  admits  in  this  connection  of  different 
explanations.  Calvin  says  it  is  equivalent  to  naturaliter^  ex 
seipso,  and  Grotius  much  to  the  same  effect,  i^ropriis  virihis, 
'through  his  own  resources.'  Not  much  different  from  this  is 
the  explanation  of  Meyer,  Tholuck,  and  De  Wette — nacTi  aein 
menscTiUcJier Weise — that  is,  after  a  purely  human  way;  so  that 
adp^  stands  opposed  to  the  divine  ITvsuf^a,  (Holy  Spirit.)  If 
this  implies  that  Abraham  was  not  justified  by  natural,  but  was 
justified  by  spiritual  works,  (works  done  after  regeneration,)  it 
contradicts  the  whole  teaching  of  the  apostle.  This,  however, 
though  naturally  suggested  as  the  meaning  of  the  passage  as 
thus  explained,  is  not  the  doctrine  of  either  of  the  commenta- 
tors just  named.  Paul  gives  his  own  interpretation  of  xaza 
adpxa  in  the  following  verse:  'Did  Abraham,'  he  asks,  'attain 
justification  according  to  the  flesh  ?  No,  for  if  he  was  justified 
by  works,  he  hath  whereof  to  boast.'  It  is  plain  that  he  uses 
the  two  expressions,  according  to  the  flesh  and  by  works,  as 
equivalent.  This  meaning  of  adpi  is  easily  explained.  Paul 
uses  the  word  for  what  is  external,  as  opposed  to  what  is  inter- 
nal and  spiritual,  and  thus  for  all  external  rites  and  ceremonial 
works,  and  then  for  works  without  limitation.  See  Gal.  iii.  3, 
vi.  12,  Philip,  iii.  3,  4.  In  this  last  passage  Paul  includes, 
under  the  flesh,  not  only  his  Hebrew  descent,  his  circumcision, 
his  being  a  Pharisee,  his  blameless  adherence  to  the  Jewish  law, 
but  everything  comprehended  under  his  "own  righteousness,"' 
as  distinguished  from  "  the  righteousness  which  is  of  God  (l-i 
7ri<T7£c)  on  the  condition  of  faith."  This  is  clearly  its  sense  here. 
It  includes  everything  meant  by  "works,"  and  "works"  includes 
all  forms  of  personal  righteousness.  This  same  result  is  reached 
in  another  way.  Kaza  adpxa  may  mean,  as  Meyer  and  others 
say,  after  a  human  method,  i.  e.  after  the  manner  of  men ;  and 
this  may  be  understood  to  mean  after  the  manner  common 
among  men,  i.  e.  through  works,  or  personal  merit,  which  is  the 
way  that  men  adopt  to  secure  favour  with  others.  This  is  the 
explanation  given  by  KoUner. 

Verse  2.  For  if  Abraham  were  justified  by  works,  he  hath 
whereof  to  glory,  but  not  before  Grod.  The  apostle's  mode  of 
reasoning  is  so  concise  as  often  to  leave  some  of  the  steps  of 
his  argument  to  be  supplied,  which,  however,  are  almost  alwaya 


164  ROMANS  IV.  3. 

sufficiently  obvious  from  the  context.  As  just  remarked,  a 
negative  answer  is  to  be  supposed  to  the  question  in  the  first 
verse.  Abraham  did  not  attain  the  favour  of  God  through 
the  flesh.  The  force  of  /or,  at  the  beginning  of  this  verse,  is 
then  obvious,  atS  introducing  the  reason  for  this  answer.  The 
passage  itself  is  very  concise,  and  the  latter  clause  admits  of 
difi"erent  interpretations.  '  If  Abraham  was  justified  by  works, 
he  might  indeed  assert  his  claim  to  the  confidence  and  favour 
of  his  fellow-men,  but  he  could  not  have  any  ground  of  boasting 
before  God.'  This  view,  however,  introduces  an  idea  entirely 
foreign  from  the  passage,  and  makes  the  conclusion  the  very 
opposite  of  that  to  which  the  premises  would  lead.  For  if  justi- 
fied by  works,  he  would  have  ground  of  boasting  before  God. 
The  interpretation  given  by  Calvin  is  altogether  the  most  satis- 
factory and  simple:  "Epichirema  est,  id  est  imperfecta  ratio- 
cinatio,  qufe  in  banc  formam  colligi  debet.  Si  Abraham  operibus 
justificatus  est,  potest  suo  merito  gloriari;  sed  non  habet  unde 
glorietur  apud  Deum;  ergo  non  ex  operibus  justificatus  est." 
'  If  Abraham  was  justified  by  works  he  hath  whereof  to  glory ; 
but  he  hath  not  whereof  to  glory  before  God,  and  therefore  he 
was  not  justified  by  works;'  the  very  conclusion  which  Paul 
intended  to  establish,  and  which  he  immediately  confirms  by 
the  testimony  of  the  Scriptures.  The  argument  thus  far  is 
founded  on  the  assumption  that  no  man  can  appear  thus  con- 
fidently before  God,  and  boast  of  having  done  all  that  was 
required  of  him.  If  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  works 
involves,  as  Paul  shows  it  does,  this  claim  to  perfect  obedience, 
it  must  be  false.  And  that  Abraham  was  not  thus  justified,  he 
proves  from  the  sacred  record. 

Verse  3.  For  what  saith  the  Scripture?  Abraham  believed 
God,  and  it  was  counted  unto  him  for  righteousness.  The  con- 
nection of  this  verse  with  the  preceding  is  this :  Paul  had  just 
said  that  Abraham  had  no  ground  of  boasting  with  God ;  for, 
what  saith  the  Scripture  ?  Does  it  refer  the  ground  of  Abra- 
ham's justification  to  his  works?  By  no  means.  It  declares 
he  Avas  justified  by  faith;  which  Paul  immediately  shows  is 
equivalent  to  saying  that  he  was  justified  gratuitously.  The 
passage  quoted  by  the  apostle  is  Gen.  xv.  6,  "Abraham  be- 
lieved God,  and  it  was  counted  unto  him  (i.  e.  imputed  to  him) 


ROMANS  IV.  3.  165 

for  righteousness."  This  is  an  important  passage,  as  the  phrase 
"to  iqipute  faith  for  righteousness,"  occurs  repeatedly  in  Paul's 
writings.  1.  The  primary  meaning  of  the  word  koyi^o[j.ac,  here 
rendered  to  count  to,  or  impute,  is  to  reason,  then,  to  reckon,  or 
number;  2  Chron.  v.  5,  "Which  could  not  be  numbered  for 
multitude;"  Mark  xv.  28,  "He  was  numbered  with  the  trans- 
gressors;" see  Isa.  liii.  17,  &c.  2.  It  means  to  esteem,  or 
regard  as  something,  that  is,  to  number  as  belonging  to  a  cer- 
tain class  of  things ;  Gen.  xxxi.  15,  "Are  we  not  counted  of  him 
strangers?"  Isa.  xl.  17,  &c.;  compare  Job  xix.  11,  xxxiii.  10, 
in  the  Hebrew.  3.  It  is  used  in  the  more  general  sense  oi  pur- 
posing, devising,  considering,  thinking,  &c.  4.  In  strict  con- 
nection with  its  primary  meaning,  it  signifies  to  impute,  to  set 
to  one's  account;  that  is,  to  number  among  the  things  belonging 
to  a  man,  or  chargeable  upon  him.  It  generally  implies  the 
accessory  idea,  of  '  treating  one  according  to  the  nature  of  the 
thing  imputed.'  Thus,  in  the  frequent  phrase,  to  impute  sin, 
as  2  Sam.  xix.  19,  "Let  not  my  Lord  impute  iniquity  unto 
me,"  i.  e.  'Let  him  not  lay  it  to  my  charge,  and  treat  me 
accordingly;"  compare  1  Sam.  xxii.  15,  in  the  Hebrew  and 
Septuagint;  Ps.  xxxii.  2,  (Septuagint,  xxxi.)  "Blessed  is  the 
man  to  whom  the  Lord  imputeth  not  iniquity,"  &c.  And  in 
the  New  Testament,  2  Cor.  vi.  19,  "Not  imputing  unto  men 
their  trespasses;"  2  Tim.  iv.  15,  '■'■I  pray  Crod  that  it  may  not 
be  laid  to  their  charge,"  &c.  These  and  numerous  similar  pas- 
sages render  the  scriptural  idea  of  imputation  perfectly  clear. 
It  is  laying  anything  to  one's  charge,  and  treating  him  accord- 
ingly. It  produces  no  change  in  the  individual  to  whom  the 
imputation  is  made;  it  simply  alters  his  relation  to  the  law. 
All  those  objections,  therefore,  to  the  doctrine  expressed  by 
this  term,  which  are  founded  on  the  assumption  that  imputation 
alters  the  moral  character  of  men ;  that  it  implies  an  infusion 
of  either  sin  or  holiness,  rest  on  a  misconception  of  its  nature. 
It  is,  so  far  as  the  mere  force  of  the  term  is  concerned,  a  matter 
of  perfect  indifference  whether  the  thing  imputed  belonged 
antecedently  to  the  person  to  whom  the  imputation  is  made  or 
not.  It  is  just  as  common  and  correct  to  speak  of  laying  to  a 
man's  charge  what  does  not  belong  to  him,  as  what  does.  That 
a  thing  can  seldom  be  justly  imputed  to  a  person  to  whom  it 


166  ROMANS  IV.  3. 

does  not  personally  belong,  is  a  matter  of  course.  But  that  the 
word  itself  implies  that  the  thing  imputed  must  belong^to  the 
person  concerned,  is  a  singular  misconception.  These  remarks 
have,  of  course,  reference  only  to  the  meaning  of  the  word. 
Whether  the  Bible  actually  teaches  that  there  is  an  imputation 
of  either  sin  or  righteousness,  to  any  to  whom  it  does  not  per- 
sonally belong,  is  another  question.  That  the  Bible  does  speak 
both  of  imputing  to  a  man  what  does  not  actually  belong  to 
him,  and  of  not  imputing  what  does,  is  evident  from  the  follow- 
ing, among  other  passages,  Levit.  xvii.  3,  4 :  '  What  man  soever 
killeth  an  ox,  and  bringeth  it  not  to  the  door  of  the  taberna- 
cle,' &c.,  "blood  shall  be  imputed  to  that  man;"  that  is,  blood- 
guiltiness  or  murder,  a  crime  of  which  he  was  not  actually 
guilty,  should  be  laid  to  his  charge,  and  he  should  be  put  to 
death.  ^'•Sanguis  hie  est  ccedes,  says  Rosenmiiller ;  perinde  Deo 
displicebit,  ac  si  ille  hominem  occidisset,  et  mortis  reus  judi- 
cabitur."  "Als  Blutschuld  soil  es  angerechnet  werden  diesem 
Manne."  G-esetiius.  On  the  other  hand,  Levit.  vii.  18,  if  any 
part  of  a  sacrifice  is  eaten  on  the  third  day,  the  offering  "shall 
not  be  imputed  to  him  that  made  it."  Paul,  speaking  to  Phile- 
mon of  the  debt  of  Onesimus,  says,  "  put  that  on  my  account," 
i.  e.  impute  it  to  me.  The  word  used  in  this  case  is  the  same 
as  that  which  occurs  in  Rom.  v.  13,  "  Sin  is  not  imputed  where 
there  is  no  law;"  and  is  in  its  root  and  usage  precisely  synony- 
mous with  the  word  employed  in  the  passage  before  us,  when 
the  latter  is  used  in  reference  to  imputation.  No  less  than 
twice  also,  in  this  very  chapter,  vs.  6  and  11,  Paul  speaks  of 
•imputing  righteousness,'  not  to  those  to  whom  it  personally 
belongs,  certainly,  but  to  the  ungodly.,  ver.  5;  to  those  who 
have  no  works,  ver.  6. 

Professor  Storr,  of  Tubingen,  De  vario  sensu  vocis  dcxaioi;, 
&c.,  in  Nov.  Test.,  in  his  Opuscula,  Vol.  I.,  p.  224,  says, 
"  Since  innocence  or  probity  (expressed  by  the  word  righteous- 
ness) does  not  belong  to  man  himself,  it  must  be  ascribed  or 
imputed  to  him.  In  this  way  the  formula,  '  righteousness  Avhich 
is  of  God,'  Philip,  iii.  9,  and  especially  the  plainer  expressions, 
'to  impute  faith  for  righteousness,'  Rom.  iv.  5,  and  'to  impute 
righteousness,'  are  to  be  understood."  We  readily  admit,  he 
says,  that  things  which  actually  belong  to  a  man  may  also  be 


ROMANS  IV.  3.  16T 

said  to  be  imputed  to  him,  as  was  the  case  with  Phineas,  &c., 
and  then  adds,  "Nevertheless,  as  he  is  said  not  to  impute  an 
action  really  performed,  Levit.  vii.,  2  Sam.  xix.,  &c.,  who  does 
not  so  regard  it  as  to  decree  the  fruit  and  punishment  of  it ;  so, 
on  the  other  hand,  those  things  can  be  imputed,  Levit.  xvii.  4, 
which  are  not,  in  fact,  found  in  the  man,  but  which  are  so  far 
attributed  to  him,  that  he  may  be  hence  treated  as  though 
he  had  performed  them.  Thus  righteousness  may  be  said  to 
be  imputed,  Rom.  iv.  6,  11,  when  not  his  own  innocence  and 
probity,  which  God  determines  to  reward,  is  ascribed  to  the 
believer,  but  when  God  so  ascribes  and  imputes  righteousness, 
of  which  we  are  destitute,  that  we  are  treated  as  innocent  and 
just."  On  page  233,  he  says,  "Verbum  Xoyi^ta&cu  monstrat 
gratiam,  Rom.  iv.  4,  nam  daacoabvrjv  nostram  negat." 

This  idea  of  imputation  is  one  of  the  most  familiar  in  all  the 
Bible,  and  is  expressed  in  a  multitude  of  cases  where  the  term 
is  not  used.  When  Stephen  prayed.  Acts  vii.  60,  "Lord,  lay 
not  this  sin  to  their  charge,"  he  expressed  exactly  the  same 
idea  that  Paul  did,  when  he  said,  2  Tim.  iv.  16,  '■^  I  pray  God  it 
may  not  be  laid  to  their  charge,"  although  the  latter  uses  the 
word  impute  {Xoycad-ei/j^)  and  the  former  does  not.  So  the 
expressions,  "his  sin  shall  be  upon  him,"  "he  shall  bear  his 
iniquity,"  which  occur  so  often,  are  perfectly  synonymous  with 
the  formula,  "his  sin  shall  be  imputed  to  him;"  and,  of  course, 
"to  bear  the  sins  of  another,"  is  equivalent  to  saying,  "those 
sins  are  imputed."  The  objection,  therefore,  that  the  word 
impute  does  not  occur  in  reference  to  the  imputation  of  the  sin 
or  righteousness  of  one  man  to  another,  even  if  well  founded, 
which  is  not  the  fact,  is  of  no  more  force  than  the  objections 
against  the  doctrines  of  the  Trinity,  vicarious  atonement,  per- 
severance of  the  saints,  &c.,  founded  on  the  fact  that  these 
tvords  do  not  occur  in  the  Bible.  The  material  point  surely  is, 
Do  the  ideas  occur  ?  The  doctrine  of  "  the  imputation  of  right- 
eousness" is  not  the  doctrine  of  this  or  that  school  in  theology. 
It  is  the  possession  of  the  Church.  It  was  specially  the  glory 
and  power  of  the  Reformation.  Those  who  differed  most  else- 
where, were  perfectly  agreed  here.  Lutherans  and  Reformed, 
alienated  from  each  other  by  the  sacramentarian  controversy, 
were  of  one  mind  on  this  great  doctrine.     The  testimony  of  the 


168  KOMANS  IV.  3. 

learned  Rationalist,  Bretschneider,  if  any  testimony  on  so 
notorious  a  fact  is  necessary,  may  be  here  cited.  Speaking 
with  special  reference  to  the  Lutheran  Church,  he  says,  "  The 
symbolical  books,  in  the  first  place,  contradict  the  scholastic 
representation  of  justification,  followed  by  the  Romish  Church, 
that  is,  that  it  is  an  act  of  God,  by  which  he  communicates  to 
men  an  inherent  righteousness,  (justitia  habitualis,  infusa,) 
i.  e.  renders  them  virtuous.  They  described  it  as  a  forensic  or 
judicial  act  of  God,  that  is,  an  act  by  which  merely  the  moral 
relation  of  the  man  to  God,  not  the  man  himself  (at  least  not 
immediately,)  is  changed."  "Hence,  justification  consists  of 
three  parts :  1.  The  imputation  of  the  merit  of  Christ.  2.  The 
remission  of  punishment.  3.  The  restoration  of  the  favour  and 
the  blessedness  forfeited  by  sin."  "By  the  imputatio  justitice 
(or  meriti)  Ohristi,  the  symbolical  books  understand  that  judg- 
ment of  God,  according  to  which  he  treats  us  as  though  we  had 
not  sinned,  but  had  fulfilled  the  law,  or  as  though  the  merit  of 
Christ  was  ours;  see  ApoL,  Art.  9,  p.  226,  Merita  propitiato- 
ris — aliis  donantur  imputatione  divina,  ut  per  ea,  tanquam 
propriis  meritis  justi  reputemur,  ut  si  quis  amicus  pro  amico 
solvit  aes  alienum,  debitor  alieno  merito  tanquam  proprio  libe- 
ratur." — Bretschneider' s  Entwickelung  aller  in  der  Dog.  vor- 
Jcomm.enden  Begriffe,  pp.  631,  632,  &c. 

But  to  return  to  the  phrase,  '  Faith  is  imputed  for  righteous- 
ness.' It  is  very  common  to  understand  faith  here,  to  include 
its  object,  i.  e.  the  righteousness  of  Christ;  so  that  it  is  not 
faith  considered  as  an  act,  which  is  imputed,  but  faith  consi- 
dered as  including  the  merit  which  it  apprehends  and  appro- 
priates. Thus  hope  is  often  used  for  the  thing  hoped  for,  as 
Rom.  viii.  24,  "Hope  that  is  seen  is  not  hope,"  &c.;  and  faith 
for  the  things  believed,  Gal.  i.  23,  "  He  preacheth  the  faith,"  &c. 
In  illustration  of  this  idea,  Gerhard,  the  leading  authority  in 
the  Lutheran  Church,  during  the  seventeenth  century,  says, 
"  Quemadmodum  annulus,  cui  inclusa  est  gemma,  dicitur  valere 
aliquot  coronatis,  pretiosissima  ita  fides,  quas  apprehendit  Christi 
justitiam,  dicitur  nobis  imputari  ad  justitiam,  quippe  cujus  est 
organum  apprehendens."  Loci  Tom.  VII.  238.  Although  there 
are  difficulties  attending  this  interpretation,  it  cannot,  with  any 
consistency,  be  exclaimed  against  by  those  who  make  faith  to 


ROMANS  IV.  3.  169 

include  the  whole  work  of  the  Spirit  on  the  heart,  and  its  fruits 
in  the  life;  as  is  done  by  the  majority  of  those  who  reject  this 
view  of  the  passage.  Besides  this  interpretation,  there  are 
three  other  explanations  which  deserve  consideration.  The  first 
is  that  adopted  by  the  Remonstrants  or  Arminians.  According 
to  their  view,  ocxatoauvrj  is  to  be  taken  in  its  ordinary  sense  of 
righteousness,  that  which  constitutes  a  man  righteous  in  the 
eye  of  the  law.  They  understand  the  apostle,  when  he  says, 
"Faith  was  imputed  for  righteousness,"  as  teaching  that  faith 
was  regarded  or  counted  as  complete  obedience  to  the  law. 
As  men  are  unable  to  render  that  perfect  obedience  which  the 
law  given  to  Adam  required,  God,  under  the  gospel,  according 
to  this  view,  is  pleased  to  accept  of  faith,  (a  fides  obsequiosa,  as 
it  is  called,  i.  e.  faith  including  evangelical  obedience,)  instead 
of  the  righteousness  which  the  law  demands.  Faith  is  thus 
made,  not  the  instrument,  but  the  ground  of  justification.  It 
is  imputed  for  righteousness  in  the  sense  of  being  regarded  and 
treated  as  though  it  were  complete  obedience  to  the  laAv.  It 
must  be  admitted,  that  so  far  as  this  single  form  of  statement  is 
concerned,  this  interpretation  is  natural,  and  consistent  with 
usage.  Thus  uncircumcision  is  said  to  be  imputed  for  circum- 
cision, that  is,  the  former  is  regarded  as  though  it  were  the 
latter.  This,  however,  is  not  the  only  sense  the  words  will 
naturally  bear,  and  it  is  utterly  inconsistent  with  what  the 
Scriptures  elsewhere  teach.  1.  It  contradicts  all  those  passages 
in  which  Paul  and  the  other  sacred  writers  deny  that  the  ground 
of  justification  is  anything  in  us,  or  done  by  us.  These  passages 
are  too  numerous  to  be  cited ;  see  chap.  iii.  20,  where  it  is  shown 
that  the  works  which  are  excluded  from  the  ground  of  justifica- 
tion are  not  ceremonial  works  merely,  nor  works  performed 
with  a  legal  spirit,  but  all  works,  without  exception ;  works  of 
righteousness,  Titus  iii.  5,  i.  e.  all  right  or  good  works.  But 
faith  considered  as  an  act,  is  as  much  a  work  as  prayer,  repent- 
ance, almsgiving,  or  anything  of  the  kind.  And  it  is  as  much 
an  act  of  obedience  to  the  law,  as  the  performance  of  any  other 
duty ;  for  the  law  requires  us  to  do  whatever  is  in  itself  right. 
2.  It  contradicts  all  those  passages  in  which  the  merit  of  Christ, 
in  any  form,  is  declared  to  be  the  ground  of  our  acceptance. 
Thus   in   chap.   iii.  25,   it   is    Christ's   propitiatory   sacrifice; 


170  ROMANS  IV.  3. 

chap.  V.  18,  19,  it  is  his  obedience  or  righteousness ;  in  many 
other  places  it  is  said  to  be  his   death,   his   cross,  his  blood. 
Faith  must  either  be  the  ground  of  our  acceptance,  or  the  means 
or  instrument  of  our  becoming  interested  in  the  true  meritorious 
ground,  viz.  the  righteousness  of  Christ.     It  cannot  stand  in 
both  relations  to  our  justification.     3.  It  is  inconsistent  with 
the  office  ascribed  to  faith.     We  are  said  to  be  saved  by,  or 
through  faith,  but  never  on  account  of  our  faith,  or  on  the 
ground  of  it.     (It  is  always   dca  7iiaTs.coz,  or  ix  Ttcazscoi;,  but 
never  dca  Ttiarcv.)  The  expressions,  "through  faith  in  his  blood," 
iii.  25,  "by  faith  in  Jesus  Christ,"  &c.,  admit  of  no  other  inter- 
pretation than  '  by  means  of  faith  in  the  blood  of  Christ,  or  in 
Christ  himself,  as  the  ground  of  confidence.'     The  interpreta- 
tion, therefore,  under  consideration  is  at  variance  with  the  very 
nature  of  faith,  which  necessarily  includes   the  receiving  and 
resting  on  Christ  as  the  ground  of  acceptance  with  God;  and, 
of  course,  implies  that  faith  itself  is  not  that  ground.     4.  We 
accordingly  never  find  Paul,  nor  any  other  of  the  sacred  writers, 
referring  his  readers  to  their  faith,  or  anything  in  themselves, 
as  the  ground  of  their  confidence.     Even  in  reference  to  those 
most  advanced  in  holiness,  he  directs  them  to  what  Christ  has 
done  for  them,  not  to  anything  wrought  in  them,  as  the  ground 
of  their  acceptance.     See  a  beautiful  passage  to  this  efiect,  in 
Neanders  Grelegenheitschriften,  p.  23.     After  stating  that  the 
believer  can  never  rest  his  justification  on  his  own  spiritual  life, 
or  works,  he  adds,   "It  ayouUI,   indeed,   fare  badly  with  the 
Christian,  if  on  such  weak  ground  as  this  he  had  to  build  his 
justification,  if  he  did  not  know  that  '  if  he  confesses  his  sins, 
and  walks  in  the  light,  as  he  is  in  the  light,  the  blood  of  Jesus 
Christ  his  Son  cleanses  from  all  sin.'     Paul,  therefore,  refers 
even  the  redeemed,  disturbed  by  the  reproaches  of  conscience, 
amidst  the  conflicts  and  trials  of  life,  not  to  the  work  of  Christ 
in  themselves,  but  to  what  the  love  of  God  in  Christ  has  done  for 
them,  and  which,  even  notwithstanding  their  own  continued  sin- 
fulness,  remains   ever   sure,"     5.  Paul,   by  interchanging  the 
ambiguous  phrase,   'faith  is  imputed  for  righteousness,'  with 
the  more  definite   expressions,  'justified  through  or  by  means 
of  faith,"  'justified  through  faith  in  his  blood,'  fixes  the  sense 
in  which  the  clause  in  question  is  to  be  understood.     It  must 


ROMANS  IV.  3.  171 

express  the  idea,  that  it  was  by  means  of  faith  that  Abraham 
came  to  be  treated  as  righteous,  and  not  that  faith  was  taken 
in  lieu  of  perfect  obedience.  See  this  subject  more  fully  dis- 
cussed in  Owen  on  Justification,  chap,  xviii. 

According  to  the  second  view,  the  word  righteousness  is  taken 
in  a  much  more  limited  sense,  and  the  phrase  '  to  impute  faith 
for  righteousness,'  is  understood  to  mean  'faith  was  regarded  as 
right,  it  was  approved.'  This  interpretation  also  is  perfectly 
consistent  with  usage.  Thus,  Ps.  cvi.  31,  it  is  said  of  the  zeal 
of  Phineas,  "  It  was  counted  unto  him  for  righteousness."  This 
of  course  does  not  mean  that  it  was  regarded  as  complete 
obedience  to  the  law,  and  taken  in  its  stead  as  the  ground  of 
justification.  It  means  simply  that  his  zeal  was  approved  of. 
It  was  regarded,  says  Dr.  Owen,  "as  a  just  and  rewardable 
action."  "Divinitus  approbatum  erat,"  says  Tuckney,  Prceleo- 
tiones,  p.  212,  "tanquam  juste  factum."  In  like  manner,  Deut. 
xxiv.  18,  it  is  said  of  returning  a  pledge,  "  It  shall  be  right- 
eousness unto  thee  before  the  Lord  thy  God."  Agreeably  to 
the  analogy  of  these  passages,  the  meaning  of  this  clause  may 
be,  '  his  faith  was  regarded  as  right ;  it  secured  the  approbation 
of  God.'  How  it  did  this,  must  be  learned  from  other  passages. 
The  third  interpretation  agrees  with  the  first,  in  taking  dcxae- 
offuuif^  in  its  proper  sense,  {righteousness,)  but  gives  a  difi"erent 
force  to  the  preposition  di;:  'Faith  was  imputed  to  him  unto 
righteousness,'  that  is,  in  order  to  his  being  regarded  and  treated 
as  righteous.  In  support  of  this  view,  reference  is  made  to  such 
frequently  recurring  expressions  as  etc  acDvrjplav,  {unto  salva- 
tion,) 'that  they  might  be  saved,'  x.  1;  d(;  fierdvocav,  {unto 
repentance,)  'that  they  might  repent,'  Matt.  iii.  11.  In  x.  10, 
of  this  epistle,  the  apostle  says,  '  With  the  heart  man  believeth 
unto  righteousness,'  (e^c  dcxacoauvrjv,)  i,  e.  in  order  to  becoming 
righteous,  or  so  as  to  become  righteous.  Faith  secures  their 
being  righteous.  According  to  this  view  of  the  passage,  all  it 
teaches  is,  that  faith  and  not  works  secured  Abraham's  justifica- 
tion before  God.  And  this  is  the  object  which  the  apostle  has 
in  view.  The  precise  relation  in  which  faith  stands  to  justifi- 
cation, whether  it  is  the  instrument  or  the  ground,  however 
clearly  taught  elsewhere,  this  particular  expression  leaves  unde- 
termined.    It  simply  asserts  that  Abraham  was  justified  as  a 


172  ROMANS  IV.  3. 

believer,  and  not  as  a  worker,  (ipya^ofiepot;,)  as  Paul  expresses 
it  in  the  next  verse. 

The  Rationalistic  theologians  of  modern  times  agree  viith.  the 
Socinians  in  teaching  that  justification  by  faith,  as  distinguished 
from  justification  by  works,  is  nothing  more  than  the  doctrine 
that  moral  character  is  determined  more  by  the  inward  princi- 
ple than  by  the  outward  act.  By  faith,  in  the  case  of  Abraham, 
they  understand  confidence  in  God;  a  pious  frame  of  mind, 
which  is  influenced  by  considerations  drawn  from  the  unseen 
and  spiritual  world,  the  region  of  truth  and  eternal  principles, 
rather  than  by  either  mercenary  feelings  or  outward  objects. 
When,  therefore,  the  Scriptures  say,  '  God  imputed  Abraham's 
faith  for  righteousness,'  the  meaning  is,  God  accepted  him  for 
his  inward  piety,  for  the  elevated  principle  by  which  his  whole 
life  was  governed.  If  this  is  what  Paul  means,  when  he  speaks 
of  Abraham  being  justified  by  faith,  it  is  what  he  means  when 
he  teaches  that  men  are  now  justified  by  faith.  Then  the  whole 
gospel  sinks  to  the  level  of  natural  religion,  and  Christ  is  in  no 
other  sense  a  Saviour,  than  as  by  his  doctrines  and  example  he 
leads  men  to  cultivate  piety.  It  is  perfectly  obvious  that  Paul 
means  to  teach  that  sinners  are  now  justified  in  the  same  way 
that  Abraham  was.  He  proves  that  we  are  justified  by  faith, 
because  Abraham  was  justified  by  faith.  If  faith  means  inward 
piety  in  the  one  case,  it  must  have  the  same  meaning  in  the 
other.  But  as  it  is  expressly  said,  over  and  over,  in  so  many 
words,  that  men  are  now  justified  by  faith  in  Christ,  it  follows 
of  necessity  that  faith  in  Christ  was  the  faith  by  which  Abra- 
ham was  justified.  He  believed  the  promise  of  redemption, 
which  is  the  promise  that  we  embrace  when  we  receive  and  rest 
on  Christ  for  salvation.  Hence  it  is  one  principal  object  of  the 
apostle's  argument  in  the  latter  part  of  this  chapter,  and  in  the 
third  chapter  of  his  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  to  show  that  we 
are  heirs  of  the  promise  made  to  Abraham,  because  we  have 
the  same  faith  that  he  had ;  the  same,  that  is,  both  in  its  nature 
and  object. 

It  is  further  to  be  remarked,  that  Xoyc^sa&ac  erV  dcxatoaovrjv, 
(to  impute  for  righteousness,)  and  dcxaioua&ac,  (to  be  justified,) 
mean  the  same  thing.  Thus  Calvin  says,  "Tantum  notemus, 
eos  quibus  justitia  imputatur,  justificari;  quando  haec  duo  a 


ROMANS  IV.  3.  173 

Paulo  tanquam  synonyma  ponuntur."  Yet,  strange  to  say, 
Olsliausen  asserts  that  they  are  very  different.  To  be  justified 
(dexaeou&ac)  and  to  have  righteousness  imputed,  he  says,  differ  as 
the  Romish  and  the  Protestant  doctrines  of  justification  differ. 
The  former  means  to  be  made  subjectively  righteous,  the  latter 
simply  to  be  regarded  as  righteous.  "  Was  Jemandem  ange- 
rechnet  wird,  das  hat  er  nicht,  er  wird  aber  angesehen  und 
behandelt,  als  hatte  er  es."  What  is  imputed  to  a  man,  that  he 
has  not,  hut  he  is  regarded  and  treated,  as  though  lie  had  it. 
Abraham  therefore  was  not  justified,  because  before  the  coming 
of  Christ,  any  true  righteousness  [dcxacoa'W/]  deou,  as  Olshausen 
says)  was  impossible;  he  was  only  regarded  as  righteous.*  But 
as  what  is  said  of  Abraham  is  said  also  of  believers  under  the 
gospel,  since  to  them  as  well  as  to  him,  righteousness  is  said  to 
be  imputed,  it  follows  that  believers  are  not  really  justified  in 
this  life.  This  is  the  conclusion  to  which  he  is  led  by  two  prin- 
ciples. The  first  is,  that  the  word  dcxatoco  means  to  make 
righteous  inwardly,  (es  bedeutet  die  gottliche  Thatigkeit  des 
Hervorrufens  der  dcxacoauvrj,)  and  no  man  is  perfectly  holy  in 
this  life;  the  second  is,  that  God  cannot  regard  any  one  as 
being  what  he  is  not,  and  therefore  he  cannot  regard  the 
unrighteous  as  righteous.     The  former  of  these  assumptions  is 

*  The  doctrine  of  the  transcendentalists  (so  called)  regarding  the  incarna- 
tion, the  person  of  Christ,  and  his  relation  to  the  Church,  necessarily  leads  to 
the  assumption  of  a  great  distinction  between  the  religion  of  the  Old  Testament 
and  that  of  the  New,  and  between  the  state  and  privileges  of  believers  then  and 
now.  If  our  redemption  consists  in  our  being  made  partakers  of  the  thean- 
thropic  nature  of  Christ,  as  there  was  no  such  nature  before  the  manifestation 
of  God  in  the  fle^h,  there  could  be  no  real  redemption,  no  deliverance  from  the 
guilt  and  power  of  sin,  before  that  event.  Hence  Olshausen  says  there  could 
be  no  iiH.dua<Tv\m  ©sou  really  belonging  to  those  who  lived  before  the  advent;  and 
on  page  171  he  says,  if  we  admit  there  was  any  regeneration  at  all  under  the 
Old  Testament,  it  could  only  be  symbolical;  and  on  page  167,  he  says,  before 
Christ,  forgiveness  of  sin  was  not  real,  but  only  symbolical.  In  a  foot  note  he 
adds,  that  under  the  theocracy  there  was  the  pardon  of  separate  acts  of  trans- 
gression, but  not  the  forgiveness  of  all  sins,  actual  and  original,  which  can 
only  proceed  from  Christ.  It  follows  also  from  this  theory,  that  justification 
is  a  subjective  change,  a  change  wrought  in  the  soul  by  the  reception  of  a  new 
nature  from  Christ.  These  conclusions  the  Romanists  had  reached  long  ago, 
by  a  different  process.  It  is  not  wonderful,  therefore,  that  so  many  of  the 
transcendentalists  of  Germany,  and  of  their  abettors  elsewhere,  have  passed 
over  to  the  Church  of  Rome. 


174  ROMANS  IV.  3. 

utterly  unfounded,  as  dcxacoio  always  means  to  declare  just,  and 
never  to  make  just.  The  second  principle,  Olsliausen,  in  his 
comment  on  this  verse,  modifies  so  far  as  to  say  that  God  can 
only  regard  as  just  those  whom  he  purposes  to  render  just ;  and 
as  with  God  there  are  no  distinctions  of  time,  he  regards  as 
already  possessed  of  righteousness  those  whom  he  has  purposed 
to  render  so.  (This  would  seem  to  imply  eternal  justification, 
or  at  least  an  imputation  of  righteousness  from  eternity  to  all 
whom  God  has  purposed  to  save.)  Without  this  modification, 
he  says,  the  objection  of  Romanists  to  the  Protestant  doctrine 
would  be  unanswerable.  There  is  a  sense,  however,  in  which 
the  principle  in  question  is  perfectly  sound.  God  must  see 
things  as  they  are,  and  pronounce  them  to  be  what  they 
are.  The  Protestant  doctrine  does  not  suppose  that  God 
regards  any  person  or  thing  as  being  other  than  he  or  it  really 
is.  When  he  pronounces  the  unjust  to  be  just,  the  word  is 
taken  in  different  senses.  He  does  not  pronounce  the  unholy 
to  be  holy;  he  simply  declares  that  the  demands  of  justice 
have  been  satisfied  in  behalf  of  those  who  have  no  righteousness 
of  their  own.  In  sin  there  are  the  two  elements  of  guilt  and 
pollution — the  one  expressing  its  relation  to  the  justice,  the 
other  its  relation  to  the  holiness  of  God ;  or,  what  amounts  to 
the  same  thing,  the  one  expressing  its  relation  to  the  penalty, 
and  the  other  its  relation  to  the  precept  of  the  law.  These  two 
elements  are  separable.  The  moral  character  or  inward  state 
of  a  man  who  has  suffered  the  penalty  of  a  crime,  and  thus 
expiated  his  offence,  may  remain  unchanged.  His  guilt,  in  the 
eye  of  human  law,  is  removed,  but  his  pollution  remains.  It 
would  be  unjust  to  inflict  any  further  punishment  on  him  for 
that  offence.  Justice  is  satisfied,  but  the  man  is  unchanged. 
There  may  therefore  be  guilt  where  there  is  no  moral  pollution, 
as  in  the  case  of  our  blessed  Lord,  who  bore  our  sins ;  and  there 
may  be  freedom  from  guilt,  where  moral  pollution  remains,  as 
in  the  case  of  every  justified  sinner.  When,  therefore,  God 
justifies  the  ungodly,  he  does  not  regard  him  as  being  other 
than  he  really  is.  He  only  declares  that  justice  is  satisfied,  and 
in  that  sense  the  man  is  just ;  he  has  a  daacoabvr]  which  satisfies 
the  demands  of  the  law.  His  moral  character  is  not  the  ground 
of  that   declaration,    and   is   not   affected  by  it.     As   to  the 


ROMANS  IV.  4,  5.  175 

distinction  made  by  Olshausen  between  imputing  righteousness 
and  justifying,  there  is  not  the  slightest  ground  for  it.  He 
himself  makes  them  synonymous,  (p.  157.)  The  two  forms  of 
expression  are  used  synonymously  in  this  very  context.  In 
ver.  3,  it  is  said,  'faith  is  imputed  for  righteousness;'  in  ver.  5, 
'  God  justifies  the  ungodly ;'  and  in  ver.  6,  'he  imputes  righteous- 
ness'— all  in  the  same  sense.  Olshausen,  although  a  representa- 
tive man,  exhibits  his  theology,  in  his  commentary,  in  a  very 
unsettled  state.  He  not  only  retracts  at  times,  in  one  volume, 
what  he  had  said  in  another,  but  he  modifies  his  doctrine  from 
page  to  page.  In  his  remarks  on  Romans  iii.  21,  he  himself  as- 
serts the  principle,  (as  quoted  above,)  that  "by  God  nothing  can 
ever  be  regarded  or  declared  righteous,  which  is  not  righteous," 
(p.  145 ;)  but  in  his  comment  on  this  verse,  he  pronounces  the 
principle,  "•  das  Gott  nach  seiner  Wahrhaftigkeit  nicht  Jeman- 
den  fUr  etwas  ansehen  kann,  was  er  nicht  ist — falsch  und  Uber 
den  Heilsweg  durchaus  irreleitend,"  (p.  174.)  That  is,  he  says 
that  the  principle  "  that  God,  in  virtue  of  his  veracity,  cannot 
regard  one  as  being  what  he  is  not — is  false,  and  perverts  the 
whole  plan  of  salvation."  On  page  157,  he  says,  "The  passing 
over  of  the  nature  (Wesen)  of  Christ  upon  the  sinner,  is  expressed, 
by  saying  rigJiteousness  is  imputed  to  him;"  whereas,  on  pages 
173 — 5,  he  labours  to  show  that  imputing  righteousness  is  some- 
thing very  diff"erent  from  imparting  righteousness.  He  prevail- 
ingly teaches  the  doctrine  of  subjective  justification,  to  which 
his  definition  and  system  inevitably  lead ;  but  under  the  stress 
of  some  direct  assertion  of  the  apostle  to  the  contrary,  he  for 
the  time  brings  out  the  opposite  doctrine.  He  exhibits  similar 
fluctuations  on  many  other  points. 

Verses  4,  5.  iVow  to  him  that  worJceth,  is  the  reward  not 
reckoned  of  grace,  but  of  debt;  but  to  him  that  worketh  not,  &c. 
These  verses  are  designed,  in  the  first  place,  to  vindicate  the 
pertinency  of  the  quotation  from  Scripture,  made  in  ver.  3,  by 
showing  that  the  declaration  'faith  was  imputed  for  righteous- 
ness,' is  a  denial  that  works  were  the  ground  of  Abraham's 
acceptance ;  and,  secondly,  that  to  justify  by  faith,  is  to  justify 
gratuitously,  and  therefore  all  passages  which  speak  of  gratui- 
tous acceptance  are  in  favour  of  the  doctrine  of  justification 
by  faith. 


176  ROMANS  IV.  4,  5. 

Now  to  Mm  that  worketh,  that  is,  either  emphatically  'to 
him  who  does  all  that  is  required  of  him;'  or  'to  him  who 
seeks  to  be  accepted  on  account  of  his  works.'  The  former 
explanation  is  the  better.  The  words  then  state  a  general  pro- 
position, '  To  him  that  is  obedient,  or  who  performs  a  stipulated 
work,  the  recompense  is  not  regarded  as  a  gratuity,  but  as  a 
debt.'  The  reward,  b  nca&b(;,  the  appropriate  and  merited  com- 
pensation. Is  not  imputed,  xara  ydptv,  dXla  b^ieOcr^iia,  not 
grace,  but  debt,  which  implies  that  a  claim  founded  in  justice  is 
the  ground  and  measure  of  remuneration.  Paul's  aro;ument  is 
founded  on  the  principle,  which  is  so  often  denied,  as  by 
Olshausen,  (p.  172,)  that  man  may  have  merit  before  God ;  or 
that  God  may  stand  in  the  relation  of  debtor  to  man.  The 
apostle  says  expressly,  that  rw  IpyaCoixkvi^,  to  him  that  works, 
the  reward  is  a  matter  of  debt.  If  Adam  had  remained  faith- 
ful and  rendered  perfect  obedience,  the  promised  reward  would 
have  been  due  to  him  as  a  matter  of  justice ;  the  withholding 
it  would  have  been  an  act  of  injustice.  When,  therefore,  the 
apostle  speaks  of  Abraham  as  having  a  ground  of  boasting,  if 
his  works  made  him  righteous,  it  is  not  to  be  understood  simply 
of  boasting  before  men.  He  would  have  had  a  ground  of 
boasting  in  that  case  before  God.  The  reward  would  have  been 
to  him  a  matter  of  debt. 

But  to  him  that  worketh  not,  zuj  8e  [jltj  ipya^ojiiiiaj.  That  is, 
to  him  who  has  no  works  to  plead  as  the  ground  of  reward ; 
mattuovTc  oh  irrc  x.r.X.,  but  believeth  upon,  i.  e.  putting  his  trust 
upon.  The  faith  which  justifies  is  not  mere  assent,  it  is  an  act 
of  trust.  The  believer  confides  upon  God  for  justification.  He 
believes  that  God  will  justify  him,  although  ungodly ;  for  the 
object  of  the  faith  or  confidence  here  expressed  is  6  dcxaicov  rbv 
Acr£j3-^,  he  who  justifies  the  ungodly.  Faith  therefore  is  appro- 
priating; it  is  an  act  of  confidence  in  reference  to  our  own 
acceptance  with  God.  To  him  who  thus  believes,  faith  is 
counted  for  righteousness,  i.  e.  it  is  imputed  in  order  to  his 
becoming  righteous.  It  lies  in  the  nature  of  the  faith  of  which 
Paul  speaks,  that  he  who  exercises  it  should  feel  and  acknow- 
ledge that  he  is  ungodly,  and  consequently  undeserving  of  the 
favour  of  God.  He,  of  course,  in  relying  on  the  mercy  of  God, 
must  acknowledge  that  his  acceptance  is  a  matter  of  grace,  and 


ROMANS  IV.  4,  5.  177 

not  of  debt.  The  meaning  of  the  apostle  is  plainly  this :  '  To 
him  that  worketh,  the  reward  is  a  matter  of  debt,  but  to  him 
who  worketh  not,  but  believeth  simply,  the  reward  is  a  matter 
of  grace.'  Instead,  however,  of  saying  'it  is  a  matter  of  grace,' 
he  uses,  as  an  equivalent  expression,  "to  him  faith  is  counted 
for  righteousness."  That  is,  he  is  justified  by  faith.  To  be 
justified  by  faith,  therefore,  is  to  be  justified  gratuitously,  and 
not  by  works.  It  is  thus  he  proves  that  the  passage  cited  in 
ver.  3,  respecting  Abraham,  is  pertinent  to  his  purpose  as  an 
argument  against  justification  by  works.  It  at  the  same  time 
shows  that  all  passages  which  speak  of  gratuitous  acceptance, 
may  be  cited  in  proof  of  his  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith. 
The  way  is  thus  opened  for  his  second  argument,  which  is 
derived  from  the  testimony  of  David. 

It  is  to  be  remarked,  that  Paul  speaks  of  God  as  justifying 
the  ungodly.  The  word  is  in  the  singular,  rbv  dasj^^,  the 
ungodly  man,  not  with  any  special  reference  to  Abraham,  as 
though  he  was  the  ungodly  person  whom  God  justified,  but 
because  the  singular,  ipya^ofispoj,  (to  him  that  zvorketh,)  Trcart'j- 
ovTc,  {to  him  that  believeth,)  is  used  in  the  context,  and  because 
every  man  must  believe  for  himself.  God  does  not  justify  com- 
munities. If  every  man  and  all  men  are  ungodly,  it  follows 
that  they  are  regarded  and  treated  as  righteous,  not  on  the 
ground  of  their  personal  character ;  and  it  is  further  apparent 
that  justification  does  not  consist  in  making  one  inherently  just 
or  holy;  for  it  is  as  ungodly  that  those  who  believe  are  freely 
justified  for  Christ's  sake.  It  never  was,  as  shown  above,  the 
doctrine  of  the  Reformation,  or  of  the  Lutheran  and  Reformed 
divines,  that  the  imputation  of  righteousness  afi'ects  the  moral 
character  of  those  concerned.  It  is  true,  whom  God  justifies  he 
also  sanctifies;  but  justification  is  not  sanctification,  and  the 
imputation  of  righteousness  is  not  the  infusion  of  righteousness. 
These  are  the  first  principles  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Reformers. 
"  The  fourth  grand  error  of  the  Papists  in  the  article  of  justifi- 
cation," says  an  old  divine,  "is  concerning  that  which  we  call 
the  form  thereof.  For  they,  denying  and  deriding  the  imputa- 
tion of  Chi'ist's  righteousness,  (without  which,  notwithstanding, 
no  man  can  be  saved,)  do  hold  that  men  are  justified  by  infusion, 
and  not  by  imputation  of  righteousness ;  we,  on  the  contrary, 
12 


178  ROMANS  IV.  6—8. 

do  hold,  according  to  the  Scriptures,  that  we  are  justified  before 
God,  only  by  the  imputation  of  Christ's  righteousness,  and  not 
by  infusion.  And  our  meaning,  when  we  say  that  God  imputeth 
Christ's  righteousness  unto  us,  is  nothing  else  but  this :  that  he 
graciously  accepteth  for  us,  and  in  our  behalf,  the  righteousness 
of  Christ,  that  is,  both  as  to  his  obedience,  which,  in  the  days 
of  his  flesh,  he  performed  for  us ;  and  passive,  that  is,  his  suf- 
ferings, which  he  sustained  for  us,  as  if  we  had  in  our  own  per- 
sons both  performed  and  suff"ered  the  same  ourselves.  Howbeit, 
we  confess  that  the  Lord  doth  infuse  righteousness  into  the 
faithful;  yet  not  as  he  justifieth,  but  as  he  sanctifieth  tliem," 
&c.  Bishop  Downame  on  Justification,  p.  261.  Tuckney,  one 
of  the  leading  members  of  the  Westminster  Assembly,  and 
principal  author  of  the  Shorter  Catechism,  in  his  Prcelectiones^ 
p.  213,  says,  "Although  God  justifies  the  ungodly,  Rom.  iv.  5, 
i.  e.  him  who  was  antecedently  ungodly,  and  who  in  a  measure 
remains,  as  to  his  inherent  character,  unjust  after  justification, 
yet  it  has  its  proper  ground  in  the  satisfaction  of  Christ,"  &c. 
On  page  220,  he  says,  "  The  Papists  understand  by  justifica- 
tion, the  infusion  of  inherent  righteousness,  and  thus  confound 
justification  with  sanctification ;  which,  if  it  was  the  true  nature 
and  definition  of  justification,  they  might  well  deny  that  the 
imputation  of  Christ's  righteousness  is  the  cause  or  formal 
reason  of  this  justification,  i.  e.  of  sanctification.  For  we  are 
not  so  foolish  or  blasphemous  as  to  say,  or  even  think,  that  the 
righteousness  of  Christ  imputed  to  us  renders  us  formally  or 
inherently  righteous,  so  that  we  should  be  formally  or  inhe- 
rently righteous  with  the  righteousness  of  Christ.  Since  the 
righteousness  of  Christ  is  proper  to  himself,  and  is  as  insepara- 
ble from  him,  and  as  incommunicable  to  others,  as  any  other 
attribute  of  a  thing,  or  its  essence  itself." 

Verses  6 — 8.  Even  as  David  also  descriheth  the  blessedness 
of  the  man  to  whom  Crod  imputeth  righteousness  without  worlcs. 
Paul's  first  argument  in  favour  of  gratuitous  justification  was 
from  the  case  of  Abraham ;  his  second  is  from  the  testimony  of 
David.  The  immediate  connection  of  this  verse  is  with  ver.  5. 
At  the  conclusion  of  that  verse,  it  was  said,  to  him  who  had  no 
works,  faith  is  imputed,  in  order  to  his  justification,  i.  e.  he  is 
justified  gratuitously,  even  as  David  speaks  of  the  blessedness 


ROMANS  IV.  6—8.  179 

of  him  whom,  although  destitute  of  merit,  God  regards  and 
treats  as  righteous.  Describeth  the  blessedness,  i.  e.  pronounces 
blessed.  The  words  are  }.e}'ei  vbv  fiaxapcafiov,  utters  the  declara- 
tion of  blessedness  concerning  the  man,  &c.  To  whom  God 
imputeth  righteousness  without  works,  that  is,  whom  God  regards 
and  treats  as  righteous,  although  he  is  not  in  himself  righteous. 
The  meaning  of  this  clause  cannot  be  mistaken.  '  To  impute 
sin,'  is  to  lay  sin  to  the  charge  of  any  one,  and  to  treat  him 
accordingly,  as  is  universally  admitted ;  so  'to  impute  right- 
eousness,' is  to  set  righteousness  to  one's  account,  and  to  treat 
him  accordingly.  This  righteousness  does  not,  of  course,  belong 
antecedently  to  those  to  whom  it  is  imputed,  for  they  are  un- 
godly, and  destitute  of  works.  Here  then  is  an  imputation  to 
men  of  what  does  not  belong  to  them,  and  to  which  they  have 
in  themselves  no  claim.  To  impute  righteousness  is  the  apos- 
tle's definition  of  the  term  to  justify.  It  is  not  making  men 
inherently  righteous,  or  morally  pure,  but  it  is  regarding  and 
treating  them  as  just.  This  is  done,  not  on  the  ground  of  per- 
sonal character  or  works,  but  on  the  ground  of  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ.  As  this  is  dealing  with  men,  not  according  to 
merit,  but  in  a  gracious  manner,  the  passage  cited  from  Ps. 
xxxii.  1,  2,  is  precisely  in  point:  "Blessed  are  they  whose 
iniquities  are  forgiven,  and  whose  sins  are  covered.  Blessed  is 
the  man  to  whom  the  Lord  will  not  impute  sin."  That  is, 
blessed  is  the  man  who,  although  a  sinner,  is  regarded  and 
treated  as  righteous.  As  the  remission  of  sin  is  necessarily 
connected  with  restoration  to  God's  favour,  the  apostle  speaks 
of  it  as  the  whole  of  justification ;  not  that  the  idea  of  remission 
exhausts  the  whole  idea  of  justification,  but  it  necessarily 
implies  the  rest.  In  like  manner,  in  Eph.  i.  7,  it  is  said,  "in 
whom  we  have  redemption,  .  .  .  the  forgiveness  of  sins:"  which 
does  not  imply  that  forgiveness  is  the  whole  of  redemption,  that 
the  gift  of  the  Spirit,  the  glorification  of  the  body,  and  eternal 
life,  which  are  so  constantly  spoken  of  as  fruits  of  Christ's 
work,  as  parts  of  the  purchased  inheritance,  are  to  be  excluded. 
Here  again  the  doctrine  of  a  personal,  inherent  righteous- 
ness, which  it  is  the  special  object  of  the  apostle  to  exclude,  is 
introduced  by  the  modern  mystical  or  transcendental  theolo- 
gians.   On  the  declaration  that  righteousness  is  imputed  without 


180  ROMANS  IV.  9. 

work8^  Olshausen  remarks :  "  No  matter  how  abundant  or  pure 
works  may  be,  the  ground  of  blessedness  is  not  in  them,  but  in 
the  principle  whence  they  flow;  that  is,  not  in  man,  but  in 
God."  The  whole  doctrine  of  the  apostle  is  made  to  be,  that 
men  are  justified  (made  holy,)  not  by  themselves,  but  by  God; 
thus  confounding,  as  Romanists  do,  justification  with  sanctifica- 
tion.  In  Ps.  xxxii.  1,  2,  as  quoted  by  Paul  from  the  LXX., 
aifcevat  {to  remit,)  and  kncxaXunrtcv  [to  cover,)  are  interchanged. 
Olshausen  says  the  former  expresses  the  New  Testament  idea 
of  forgiveness,  (die  reale  HinwegschajQfung  der  Sunde,)  i.  e.  the 
real  removal  of  sin ;  the  latter,  the  Old  Testament  idea  of  non- 
imputation  of  sin — the  sin  remaining,  but  being  overlooked. 
This  view  of  the  nature  of  remission,  and  of  the  diflference 
between  the  Old  and  the  New  Testament,  is  purely  Romish. 

Verse  9.  Cometh  this  blessedness  upon  the  circumeison  only, 
or  upon  the  uncircumeision  also?  &c.  The  apostle's  third  argu- 
ment, commencing  with  this  verse  and  continuing,  to  the  12th, 
has  special  reference  to  circumcision.  He  had  proved  that 
Abraham  was  not  justified  on  account  of  his  works  generally; 
he  now  proves  that  circumcision  is  neither  the  ground  nor  con- 
dition of  his  acceptance.  The  proof  of  this  point  is  brief  and 
conclusive.  It  is  admitted  that  Abraham  was  justified.  The 
only  question  is,  was  it  before  or  after  his  circumcision  ?  If 
before,  it  certainly  was  not  on  account  of  it.  As  it  was  before, 
circumcision  must  have  had  some  other  object. 

'Cometh  this  blessedness.'  There  is  nothing  in  the  original 
to  answer  to  the  word  cometh,  although  some  word  of  the  kind 
must  be  supplied.  The  most  natural  word  to  supply  is  Xeyercu. 
David  utters  the  declaration  of  the  blessedness  'of  the  man 
whose  sins  are  pardoned.'  Concerning  whom  is  this  declara- 
tion uttered?  The  word  rendered  blessedness  means,  more 
properly,  'declaration  of  blessedness.'  'This  declaration  of 
blessedness,  is  it  upon,  i.  e.  is  it  about,  (Ai^ero^)  is  it  said  con- 
cerning the  circumcision  only?'  The  preposition  [im)  used  by 
the  apostle,  often  points  out  the  direction  of  an  action,  or  the 
subject  concerning  which  anything  is  said.  This  question  has 
not  direct  reference  to  the  persons  to  whom  the  ofiers  of  accept- 
ance are  applicable,  as  though  it  were  equivalent  to  asking,  '  Is 
this  blessedness  confined  to  the  Jews,  or  may  it  be  extended  to 


ROMANS  IV.  10,  11.  181 

the  Gentiles  also  ?'  because  this  is  not  the  subject  now  in  hand. 
It  is  the  ground  or  condition  of  acceptance,  and  not  the  persons 
to  whom  the  oflFer  is  to  be  made,  that  is  now  under  consideration. 
The  question  therefore  is,  in  substance,  this :  '  Does  this  decla- 
ration of  blessedness  relate  to  the  circumcised,  as  such  ?  Is  cir- 
cumcision necessary  to  justification?' — the  blessing  of  which 
Paul  is  speaking.  The  answer  obviously  implied  to  the  pre- 
ceding question  is,  '  It  is  not  said  concerning  the  circumcised, 
as  such;  for  we  say  that  faith  was  imputed  to  Abraham  for 
righteousness.'  It  was  his  faith,  not  his  circumcision,  that  was 
the  condition  of  his  justification.  The  preceding  verses  are 
occupied  with  the  testimony  of  David,  which  decided  nothing  as 
to  the  point  of  circumcision.  To  determine  whether  this  rite 
was  a  necessary  condition  of  acceptance,  it  was  requisite  to 
refer  again  to  the  case  of  Abraham.  To  decide  the  point  pre- 
sented in  the  question  at  the  beginning  of  the  verse,  the  apostle 
argues  from  the  position  already  established.  It  is  conceded 
or  proved  that  Abraham  was  justified  by  faith;  to  determine 
whether  circumcision  is  necessary,  we  have  only  to  ask.  Under 
what  circumstances  was  he  thus  justified,  before  or  after  cir- 
cumcision ? 

Verse  10.  How  was  it  then  reckoned?  when  he  was  in 
eh'cumcision  or  uncircumcision  ?  Not  in  circumcision,  hut  in 
uncircumcision.  Of  course,  his  circumcision,  which  was  long 
subsequent  to  his  justification,  could  not  be  either  the  ground 
or  necessary  condition  of  his  acceptance  with  God. 

Verse  11.  And  he  received  the  sign  of  circumcision,  the  seal 
of  the  righteousness  of  the  faith  which  he  had,  being  yet  uncir- 
cumcised,  &c.  As  Paul  had  shown  that  circumcision  was  not  the 
condition  of  justification,  it  became  necessary  to  declare  its  true 
nature  and  design.  The  sign  of  circumcision,  i.  e.  circumcision 
which  was  a  sign,  (genitive  of  apposition;)  as  "the  earnest  of 
the  Spirit,"  for  'the  Spirit  which  is  an  earnest,'  2  Cor.  i.  20. 
The  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith,  &c.  The  phrase,  right- 
eousness of  faith,  is  a  concise  expression  for  'righteousness 
which  is  attained  by  faith,'  or,  as  it  stands  more  fully  in  Philip, 
iii.  9,  "the  righteousness  of  God,  which  is  by  faith."  The 
word  righteousness,  in  such  connections,  includes,  with  the  idea 
of  excellence  or  obedience,  that  of  consequent  blessedness.     It 


182  ROMANS  IV.  11. 

is  the  'state  of  acceptableness  with  God.'  The  circumcision  of 
■Abraham  was  designed  to  confirm  to  him  the  fact,  that  he  was 
regarded  and  treated  by  God  as  righteous,  through  faith,  which 
was  the  means  of  his  becoming  interested  in  the  promise  of 
redemption.  From  this  passage  it  is  evident  that  circumcision 
was  not  merely  the  seal  of  the  covenant  between  God  and  the 
Hebrews  as  a  nation.  Besides  the  promises  made  to  Abraham, 
of  a  numerous  posterity,  and  of  the  possession  of  the  land  of 
Canaan,  there  was  the  far  higher  promise,  that  through  his  seed 
(i.  e.  Christ,  Gal.  iii.  16)  all  the  nations  of  the  e^rth  should 
be  blessed.  This  was  the  promise  of  redemption,  as  the  apos- 
tle teaches  us  in  Gal.  iii.  13 — 18:  "Christ,"  he  says,  "has 
redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the  law — in  order  that  the  bless- 
ing of  Abraham  might  come  upon  the  Gentiles."  The  blessing 
promised  to  Abraham,  in  which  the  Gentiles  participate  through 
Jesus  Christ,  can  be  none  other  than  redemption.  As  that 
blessing  was  promised  to  Abraham  on  the  condition,  not  of 
works,  but  of  faith,  the  apostle  hence  argues,  that  in  our  case 
also  we  are  made  partakers  of  that  blessing  by  faith,  and  not 
by  works.  This  was  the  covenant  of  which  circumcision  was 
the  seal.  All  therefore  who  were  circumcised,  professed  to 
embrace  the  covenant  of  grace.  All  the  Jews  were  professors 
of  the  true  religion,  and  constituted  the  visible  Church,  in  which 
by  divine  appointment  their  children  were  included.  This  is 
the  broad  and  enduring  basis  of  infant  church-membership. 

Abraham,  says  the  apostle,  was  thus  assured  of  his  justifica- 
tion by  faith,  (ect;  rb  elvai,)  in  order  that  he  might  be  the  father ; 
or,  80  that  he  is  the  father,  &c.  The  former  explanation  is  to 
be  preferred,  not  only  because  Sfc  with  the  infinitive,  commonly 
expresses  design,  but  also  because  the  whole  context  shows  that 
the  apostle  intends  to  bring  into  view  the  purpose  pf  God  in  the 
justification  of  Abraham.  The  father  of  all  them  that  believe, 
though  they  he  not  circumcised,  tvcIvtcdu  tcSv  mazeuovrcov  8t 
dxpoj^uaTcai;,  i.  e.  'of  all  believing,  with  uncircumcision.'  That 
is,  of  all  uncircumcised  believers.  The  preposition  did,  here,  as 
in  ii.  27,  and  elsewhere,  simply  marks  the  attendant  circum- 
stances. The  word  father  expresses  community  of  nature  or 
character,  and  is  often  applied  to  the  head  or  founder  of  any 
school  or  class  of  men,  whose  character  or  course  is  determined 


ROMANS  IV.  11.  188 

by  the  relation  to  the  person  so  designated;  as  Gen.  iv.  20, 
21:  "  Jabal  .  .  .  was  the  father  of  such  as  dwell  in  tents;"  and, 
"  Jubal  .  .  .  was  the  father  of  all  such  as  handle  the  harp  and 
organ."  Hence  teachers,  priests,  and  kings  are  often  called 
fathers.  Believers  are  called  the  children  of  Abraham,  because 
of  this  identity  of  religious  nature  or  character,  as  he  stands 
out  in  Scripture  as  the  believer ;  and  because  it  was  with  him 
that  the  covenant  of  grace,  embracing  all  the  children  of  God, 
whether  Jews  or  Gentiles,  was  reenacted ;  and  because  they  are 
his  heirs,  inheriting  the  blessings  promised  to  him.  As  Abra- 
ham was  the  head  and  father  of  the  theocratical  people  under 
the  Old  Testament,  this  relation  was  not  disowned  when  the 
middle  wall  of  partition  was  broken  down,  and  the  Gentiles 
introduced  into  the  family  of  God.  He  still  remained  the  father 
of  the  faithful,  and  we  are  "the  sons  of  Abraham  by  faith," 
Gal.  iii.  7.  The  Jews  were  accustomed  to  speak  in  the  same 
way  of  Abraham :  Michlol  Jophi  on  Malachi  ii.  15,  by  the  one 
there  mentioned,  "Abraham  is  intended,  for  he  was  one  alone, 
and  the  father  of  all  who  follow  and  imitate  him  in  faith." 
Bechai,  fol.  27,  he  is  called  "The  root  of  faith,  and  father 
of  all  those  who  believe  in  one  God."  Jalkut  Chadash,  fol. 
54,  4,  "  On  this  account  Abraham  was  not  circumcised  until  he 
was  ninety-nine  years  old,  lest  he  should  shut  the  door  on 
proselytes  coming  in."  See  Schoettgen,  p.  508. 

That  righteousness  might  he  imputed  unto  them  also.  The 
connection  and  design  of  these  words  are  not  very  clear,  and 
they  are  variously  explained.  They  may  be  considered  as 
explanatory  of  the  former  clause,  and  therefore  connected  with 
the  first  part  of  the  verse.  The  sense  would  then  be,  'Abraham 
was  justified,  being  yet  uncircumcised,  that  he  might  be  the 
father  of  believers,  although  uncircumcised,  that  is,  that  right- 
eousness might  be  imputed  unto  them  also.'  This  clause  is 
most  commonly  regarded  as  a  parenthesis,  designed  to  indicate 
the  point  of  resemblance  between  Abraham  and  those  of  whom 
he  is  called  the  father:  'He  is  the  father  of  uncircumcised 
believers,  since  they  also  are  justified  by  faith,  as  he  was.' 
The  words  e; c  to  Xoyiadyivax  are  explanatory  of  ££C  to  eluae  ahrbv 
rraTspa:  '  He  was  justified  in  uncircumcision,  in  order  that  he 
might  be  the  father,  &c.;  that  is,  in  order  that  faith  might  be 


184  ROMANS  IV.  12. 

imputed  to  them  aho.'  From  this  it  appears  that  "to  impute 
faith  for  righteousness"  and  "to  impute  righteousness,"  are 
synonymous.  To  Abraham  righteousness  was  imputed ;  he  had 
the  {dcxacoauvq  rrj^  ncatsax:)  righteousness  of  faith  as  truly  and 
really  as  believers  now  have.  Nothing  can  be  more  opposed  to 
the  whole  tenor  of  apostolic  teaching  than  the  Romish  and 
modern  mystical  doctrine,  that  the  Old  Testament  believers 
were  not  fully  justified;  that  their  sins  were  pretermitted,  but 
not  remitted;  that  their  regeneration  was  symbolical,  but  not 
real. 

Verse  12.  And  the  father  of  circumcision  to  them,  who  are 
not  of  the  circumcision  only,  &c.  That  the  preceding  clause  is 
parenthetical  is  plain,  because  the  grammatical  construction  in 
this  verse  is  continued  unbroken.  Father  of  circumcision,  i.  e. 
of  the  circumcised.  To  them,  abrolz.  This  change  of  con- 
struction from  the  genitive  to  the  dative  may  be  accounted  for 
either  by  the  fact,  that  in  the  Hebrew  it  may  be  said  "  father 
to"  as  well  as  "father  of;"  or  by  assuming  that  auTOi<;  is  the 
dative  of  advantage,  "/or  them."  The  meaning  of  this  verse 
is  somewhat  doubtful.  According  to  our  version,  which  adheres 
closely  to  the  Greek,  the  meaning  is,  'Abraham  is  not  the  father 
of  uncircumcised  believers  only,  as  stated  in  ver.  11,  but  he  is 
the  father  of  the  circumcised  also,  provided  they  follow  the 
example  of  his  faith.'  According  to  this  view,  as  ver.  11  pre- 
sents him  as  the  father  of  the  believing  Gentiles,  this  presents 
him  as  the  father  of  the  believing  Jews.  The  only  grammatical 
objection  to  this  interpretation  is  the  repetition  of  the  article 
ro£C  before  axocfobat,  which  would  seem  to  indicate  that  "those 
who  follow  the  steps  of  his  faith"  were  a  difierent  class  from 
the  circumcised.  Hence  some  commentators  interpret  the  pas- 
sage thus :  '  He  is  the  father  of  the  circumcision,  and  not  of  the 
circumcision  only,  but  also  of  those  who  follow  his  faith,  which 
he  had  being  yet  uncircumcised.'  But  this  is  inconsistent  with 
the  construction.  1.  It  overlooks  the  xai  at  the  beginning  of 
the  verse,  by  which  it  is  connected  with  ver.  11 :  '  He  is  the 
father  of  the  uncircumcised,  (ver.  11,)  and  father  of  the  circum- 
cised, (ver.  12.)  2.  It  requires  a  transposition  of  the  words 
ro'it;  oh,  so  as  to  read  oh  xdiz.  What  Paul  says  is,  '  To  those 
who   are  not  of  the  circumcision  only.'     This   interpretation 


ROMANS  IV.  13.  185 

makes  him  say,  'Not  to  those  only  who  are  of  the  circumcision.' 
3.  It  is  very  unnatural  to  make  this  verse  repeat  what  had  just 
been  said  in  ver.  11.  There  Paul  had  said  that  Abraham  was 
the  father  of  Gentile  believers ;  why  should  he  here  say  he  was 
the  father  of  the  Jews,  and  also  of  the  Gentiles  ?  The  former 
interpretation,  which  is  adopted  by  the  great  body  of  com- 
mentators, is  therefore  to  be  preferred. 

Verses  13 — 16  contain  two  additional  arguments  in  favour 
of  the  apostle's  doctrine.  The  first,  vs.  13,  14,  is  the  same  as 
that  presented  more  at  length  in  Gal.  iii.  18,  &c.,  and  is  founded 
on  the  nature  of  a  covenant.  The  promise  having  been  made 
to  Abraham  (and  his  seed,)  on  the  condition  of  faith,  cannot 
now,  consistently  with  fidelity,  be  made  to  depend  on  obedience 
to  the  law.  The  second  argument,  vs.  15,  16,  is  from  the  nature 
of  the  law  itself. 

Verse  13.  For  the  promise,  that  he  should  he  heir  of  the 
ivorld,  was  not  to  Abraham,  or  to  his  seed,  &c.  The  word  for 
does  not  connect  this  verse  with  the  one  immediately  preceding, 
as  a  proof  of  the  insufl&ciency  of  circumcision.  It  rather  marks 
the  introduction  of  a  new  argument  in  favour  of  the  general 
proposition  which  the  chapter  is  designed  to  establish.  As 
Abraham  was  not  justified  for  his  circumcision,  so  neither  was 
it  on  account  of  his  obedience  to  the  law.  If,  however,  it  be 
preferred  to  connect  this  verse  with  what  immediately  precedes, 
the  argument  is  substantially  the  same.  In  the  preceding 
verses  Paul  had  said  that  Abraham  is  the  father  of  believers; 
in  other  words,  that  believers  are  his  heirs,  for  the  promise 
that  he  should  inherit  the  world  was  made  on  the  condition  of 
faith.  '  The  promise  here  spoken  of  is,  that  Abraham  and  his 
seed  should  be  the  heirs  of  the  world.  The  word  heir,  in  Scrip- 
ture, frequently  means  secure  possessor.  Heb.  i.  2,  vi.  17, 
xi.  7,  &c.  This  use  of  the  term  probably  arose  from  the  fact, 
that  aikong  the  Jews  possession  by  inheritance  was  much  more 
secure  >  and  permanent  than  that  obtained  by  purchase.  The 
promistf  was  not  to  Abraham,  nor  to  his  seed,  {^/j  T(p  aKspfiaTi 
auTou,)  i.  e.  neither  to  the  one  nor  to  the  other.  Both  were 
included  in  the  promise.  And  by  his  seed,  is  not  here,  as  in  Gal. 
iii.  16,  meant  Christ,  but  his  spiritual  children.  This  is  evident 
from  ver.  16,  w\here  the  apostle  speaks  of  rrdv  to  anepixa,  the 


nB  ROMANS  rV.  13. 

whole  seed.  The  clause  rd  xkr^pouofiou  aurbv  elvou  is  explanatory 
of  jj  inafYsXia.  It  states  the  contents  of  the  promise.  The 
article  to,  attached  to  the  infinitive,  renders  it  more  prominent 
or  emphatic.  As  no  such  promise  as  that  mentioned  in  this 
verse  is  contained,  in  so  many  words,  in  the  Old  Testament,  the 
apostle  must  have  designed  to  express  what  he  knew  to  be  the 
purport  of  those  actually  given.  The  expression,  however,  has 
been  variously  explained.  1.  Some  understand  the  world  to^_ 
mean  the  land  of  Canaan  merely.  But  in  the  first  place,  this 
is  a  very  unusual,  if  not  an  entirely  unexampled  use  of  the 
word.  And,  in  the  second  place,  this  explanation  is  incon- 
sistent with  the  context ;  for  Paul  has  reference  to  a  promise 
of  which,  as  appears  from  ver.  16,  believing  Gentiles  are  to 
partake.  2.  Others  understand  the  apostle  to  refer  to  the 
promise  that  Abraham  should  be  the  father  of  many  nations. 
Gen.  xvii.  5,  and  that  his  posterity  should  be  as  numerous  as 
the  stars  of  heaven.  Gen.  xv.  5 ;  promises  which  they  limit  to 
his  natural  descendants,  who,  being  widely  scattered,  may  be 
said,  in  a  limited  sense,  to  possess  the  world.  But  this  inter- 
pretation is  irreconcilable  with  ver.  16.  3.  Besides  the  pro- 
mises already  referred  to,  it  was  also  said,  that  in  him  all  the 
nations  of  the  earth  should  be  blessed,  Gen.  xii.  3.  This,  as 
Paul  explains  it,  Gal.  iii.  16,  &c.,  had  direct  reference  to  the 
blessings  of  redemption  through  Jesus  Christ,  who  was  the  seed_ 
of  Abraham.  And  here  too  he  speaks  of  blessings  of  which  all 
believers  partake.  The  possession  of  the  world,  therefore,  here 
intended,  must  be  understood  in  a  manner  consistent  with  these 
passages.  The  expression  is  frequently  taken  in  a  general 
sense,  as  indicating  general  prosperity  and  happiness.  "  To  be 
heir  of  the  world"  would  then  mean,  to  be  prosperous  and 
happy,  in  the  best  sense  of  the  words.  Reference  is  made,  in 
support  of  this  interpretation,  to  such  passages  as  Matt.  v.  5, 
Ps.  xxxvii.  11,  "The  meek  shall  inherit  the  earth;"  Ps.  xxv. 
13,  "His  seed  shall  inherit  the  earth."  The  promise  then,  to 
be  the  heir  of  the  world,  is  a  general  promise  of  blessedness. 
And  as  the  happiness  promised  to  believers,  or  the  p<ious,  as 
such,  is  of  course  the  happiness  consequent  on  religion,  and  is 
its  reward,  the  promise  in  this  sense  may  include  all  the  bless- 
ings of  redemption.    So  in  Gal.  iii.  14,  Paul  uses  the  expression 


ROMANS  IV.  13.  187 

"that  the  blessing  of  Abraham  might  come  on  the  Gentiles," 
as  equivalent  to  saying  'that  all  the  blessings  of  the  gospel 
might  come  upon  them.'  4.  Or  the  promises  in  question  maj_ 
have  reference  to  the  actual  possession  of  Ihe  world  by  the 
spiritual  seed  of  Abraham,  and  Christ  their  head.  The  declara- 
tion that  Abraham  should  be  the  father  of  many  nations,  and 
that  his  seed  should  be  as  the  stars  of  heaven  for  multitude, 
included  far  more  than  that  his  natural  descendants  should  be 
very  numerous.  If  they  who  are  of  faith  '  are  the  seed  of  Abra- 
ham, and  heirs  of  the  promise,'  Gal.  iii.  9,  29,  then  will  the  pro- 
mise, as  stated  by  the  apostle,  have  its  literal  accomplishment 
when  the  kingdoms  of  this  world  are  given  to  the  saints  of  the 
most  high  God  (Dan.  vii.  27,)  and  when  the  uttermost  parts  of 
the  earth  become  the  possession  of  Christ.  In  this  sense,  the 
promise  includes  the  universal  prevalence  of  the  true  religion, 
involving  of  course  the  advent  of  Christ,  the  establishment  of 
his  kingdom,  and  all  its  consequent  blessings.  The  Jewish 
writers  were  accustomed  to  represent  Abraham  as  the  heir  of 
the  world.  "Bemidbar,  R.  xiv.,  fol.  202,  'The  garden  is  the 
world  which  God  gave  to  Abraham,  to  whom  it  is  said.  Thou 
shalt  be  a  blessing.'  '  God  gave  to  my  father  Abraham  the  pos- 
session of  heaven  and  earth.'  Midrasch  Mischle,  19.  Mechila, 
in  Ex.  xiv.  31,  'Abraham  our  father  did  not  obtain  the  inhe- 
ritance of  this  world,  and  the  world  to  come,  except  through 
faith.'  "   Wetstein. 

The  promise  to  Abraham  and  his  seed  was  not  through  the 
law,  but  through  the  righteousness  of  faith.  That  is,  it  was  not 
on  condition  of  obedience  to  the  law,  but  on  condition  of  his 
having  that- righteousness  which  is  obtained  by  faith.  Through 
the  law,  is  therefore  equivalent  to  through  the  worlcs  of  the  law. 
as  appears  from  its  opposition  to  the  latter  clause,  'righteous- 
ness of  faith.'  By  the  law,  is  to  be  understood  the  whole  rule 
of  duty,  as  in  other  passages  of  the  same  kind ;  see  iii.  20.  In 
this  sense  it  of  course  includes  the  Mosaic  law,  which,  to  the 
Jews,  was  the  most  prominent  portion  of  the  revealed  will  of 
God,  and  by  obedience  to  which  especially  they  hoped  for  the 
mercy  of  God.  The  parallel  passage.  Gal.  iii.  18,  &c.,  where 
the  law  is  said  to  have  been  given  four  hundred  years  after  the 
covenant  formed  with  Abraham,  shows  it  was  one  part  of  the 


188  ROMANS  IV.  14. 

apostle's  design  to  convince  the  Jews,  that  as  Abraham  was  not 
justified  by  his  circumcision,  (ver.  11,)  so  also  it  was  not  in 
virtue  of  the  Mosaic  economy  npt  yet  established ;  and  therefore 
the  promise  could  not  be  made  to  depend  on  the  condition  of  obe- 
dience to  that  dispensation.  This  idea,  although  included,  is  not 
to  be  urged  to  the  exclusion  of  the  more  comprehensive  mean- 
ing of  the  word  law^  which  the  usage  of  the  apostle  and  the  con- 
text show  to  be  also  intended.  It  was  neither  by  obedience  to  the 
law  generally,  nor  to  the  particular  form  of  it,  as  it  appeared 
in  the  Mosaic  institutions,  that  the  promise  was  to  be  secured. 

Verse  14.  For  if  they  wliieh  are  of  the  law  be  heirs,  &c. 
The  original  condition  being  faith,  if  another  be  substituted  the 
covenant  is  broken,  the  promise  violated,  and  the  condition 
made  of  none  effect.  "  They  who  are  of  the  law"  (of  ix  pofjtoo,) 
sometimes,  as  ver.  16,  means  the  Jews,  i.  e.  those  who  have  the 
law;  compare  ver.  12,  "Those  of  circumcision,"  &c.  But  here 
it  means  legalists,  those  who  seek  justification  by  the  works  of 
the  law ;  as  '  those  who  are  of  faith'  are  believers,  those  who  seek 
justification  by  faith ;  compare  Gal.  iii.  10,  "As  many  as  are 
of  the  works  of  the  law  are  under  the  curse,"  i.  e.  as  many  as 
seek  acceptance  by  their  own  works.  The  apostle's  meaning, 
therefore,  obviously  is,  that  if  those  who  rely  upon  their  own 
works  are  the  heirs  of  the  promise,  and  are  accepted  on  the 
condition  of  obedience  to  the  law,  the  whole  covenant  is  broken, 
faith  is  made  void,  and  the  promise  made  of  none  effect.  "  Is 
made  void"  [xexivcozai,)  is  rendered  useless;  see  1  Cor.  i.  17, 
"The  cross  of  Christ  is  made  useless,"  ix.  15,  &c.;  compare 
1  Cor.  XV.  17,  "Your  faith  is  vain,"  not  only  without  founda- 
tion but  of  no  use.  The  promise  is  made  of  non^-effect  (xazTJp- 
YfjToc,)  i.  e.  is  invalidated;  see  chap.  iii.  3,  31.  It  is  plain 
from  the  whole  design  and  argument  of  the  apostle,  that  by 
law,  in  this  whole  connection,  he  means  not  specifically  the 
law  of  Moses,  but  the  law  of  God,  however  revealed  as  a  rule 
of  duty  for  man.  He  has  ic^ference  to  the  Gentiles  as  well  as 
to  the  Jews.  His  purpose  is  a  genoiply  to  convince  his  readers 
that  obedience  to  the  Mosaic  id., to  mnot  save  them,  but  that 
obedience  in  any  form,  works  of  any  kind,  are  insufficient  for  a 
man's  justification  before  God.  So  far,  therefore,  from  the 
context  requiring,   as  so  many  of  the  inodern  commentators 


ROMANS  IV.  15.  189 

avSsert,  an  exclusive  reference  in  this  connection  to  the  law  of 
Moses,  it  imperatively  demands  the  reverse. 

Verse  15.  For  the  law  worketh  wrath,  &c.  That  is,  it  causes 
men  to  be  the  subjects  of  wrath.  It  brings  them  under  con- 
demnation. So  far  from  imparting  life,  it  causes  death.  If, 
therefore,  the  inheritance  is  suspended  on  the  condition  of  obe- 
dience to  the  law,  it  can  never  be  attained ;  for  by  the  law  no 
flesh  living  can  be  justified.  The  connection  of  this  verse, 
therefore,  may  be  with  what  immediately  precedes.  The  pro- 
mise fails  if  it  be  by  the  law,  for  the  law  worketh  death.  The 
truth  here  presented,  however,  although  thus  incidentally  intro- 
duced, is  none  the  less  a  new  and  substantive  argument  for  the 
doctrine  of  justification  by  faith.  It  is  the  same  argument  as 
that  urged  in  Gal.  iii.  10,  derived  from  the  very  nature  of  the 
law.  If  it  works  wrath,  if  all  who  are  under  the  law  are  under 
the  curse,  if  the  law  condemns,  it  cannot  justify.  As,  however, 
there  are  two  ways  in  which,  according  to  the  apostle,  the  law 
works  wrath,  so  there  are  two  views  of  the  meaning  of  this  pas- 
sage. First,  the  law  works  wrath,  because  it  says,  "  Cursed  is 
every  one  who  continueth  not  in  all  things  written  in  the  book 
of  the  law  to  do  them,"  Gal.  iii.  10.  As  the  law,  from  its  very 
nature,  demands  perfect  obedience,  and  condemns  all  who  are 
not  perfect,  it,  by  its  very  nature,  is  unsuited  to  give  life  to 
sinners.  It  can  only  condemn  them.  If  there  were  no  law, 
there  would  be  no  sin,  and  no  condemnation.  But  as  all  are 
under  the  law,  and  all  are  sinners,  all  are  under  the  curse.  The 
other  way  in  which  the  law  works  wrath  is,  that  it  excites  and 
exasperates  the  evil  passions  of  the  heart ;  not  from  any  defect 
in  the  law  itself,  but  from  the  nature  of  sin.  This  idea  the 
apostle  presents  fully  in  the  seventh  chapter ;  where  it  is  pro- 
perly in  place,  as  he  is  there  treating  of  sanctification.  Here, 
where  he  is  treating  of  justification,  that  idea  would  be  inappro- 
priate, and  therefore  the  former  interpretation  is  to  be  decidedly 
preferred.  Calvin,  Tholuck,  and  others,  however,  understand 
the  apostle  to  reason  thus:  'The  law,  instead  of  freeing  men 
from  sin,  incidentally  renders  their  transgressions  more  numer- 
ous, conspicuous,  and  inexcusable,  and  thus  brings  them  more 
and  more  under  condemnation.'  "Nam  quum  Lex  nihil  quara 
ultionem  generet,  non  potest  affere  gratiam.     Bonis  quidem  ac 


190  ROMANS  IV.  15. 

integris  viam  vitse  monstraret:  sed  quatenus  vitiosis  ac  cor- 
ruptis  prsecipifc,  quid  debeant,  praestandi  autem  vires  non  sub- 
ministrat,  reos  apud  Dei  tribunal  peragit.  Quae  enim  est  naturae 
nostras  vitiositas,  quo  magis  docemur,  quid  rectum  sit  ac  justum, 
eo  apertius  nostra  iniquitas  detegitur,  maximeque  contumacia; 
atque  hoc  modo  gravius  Dei  judicium  accersitur."  For  where 
there  is  no  law,  there  is  no  transgression.  The  interpretation 
given  to  this  clause  depends  upon  the  view  taken  of  the  preced- 
ing one.  It  assigns  the  reason  why  the  law  works  wrath.  If 
the  law  be  understood  to  work  wrath  by  exasperating  the  evils 
of  our  corrupt  nature,  then  the  meaning  of  this  confirmatory 
clause  must  be,  that  the  law  makes  sin  more  inexcusable.  It 
exalts  sins  into  transgressions,  6./iapTca  into  Tzapd^aact;.  Thus 
again  Calvin  says,  that  the  reason  why  the  law  works  wrath  is, 
•'quia  cognitione  justitiae  Dei  per  legem  percept^,  eo  gravius 
peccamus  in  Deum,  quo  minus  excusationis  nobis  superest — non 
loquitur  apostolus,"  he  adds,  "de  simplici  justitiae  transgress- 
ione,  a  qua  nemo  eximitur;  sed  transgressionem  appellat,  ubi 
animus  edoctus,  quid  Deo  placeat  quidve  displiceat,  fines  voce 
Dei  sibi  definitos  sciens  ac  volens  perrumpit.  Atqui  ut  uno 
verbo  dicam,  transgressio  hie  non  simplex  delictum,  sed  destina- 
tam  in  violand^  justiti^  contumaciam  significat."  But  all  this 
belongs  to  the  inefficacy  of  the  law  to  produce  holiness,  and  not 
to  its  impotency  in  the  matter  of  justification,  which  is  the  point 
here  under  consideration.  The  apostle's  argument  here  is,  ^hat 
the  inheritance  must  be  by  faith,  not  by  the  law,  for  the  law 
can  only  condemn.  It  works  wrath,  for  without  it  there  would 
be  no  condemnation,  because  there  would  be  no  transgression. 
Besides,  Paul  does  not  make  the  distinction  between  sin  and 
transgression,  between  d-papTta  and  Trapd^aac^,  which  the  former 
interpretation  supposes.  What  is  here  said  of  transgression,  is, 
in  V.  13,  said  of  sin.  Where  there  is  no  law,  there  can  be  no 
sin,  because  the  very  idea  of  sin  is  the  want  of  conformity  to  a 
rule,  to  which  conformity  is  due ;  so  that  where  there  is  no  rule 
or  standard,  there  can  be  no  want  of  conformity.  Such  being 
the  meaning  of  this  clause,  it  is  plain  that  by  law,  the  apostle 
does  not  intend  the  Mosaic  law,  but  law  as  the  standard  to 
which  rational  creatures  are  bound  to  be  conformed.  If  men 
would  only  acquiesce  in  Paul's  idea  of  law,  they  could  not  fail 


ROMANS  IV.  16.  191 

to  receive  his  doctrine  concerning  sin  and  justification.  If  the 
law  is  holy,  just,  and  good ;  if  it  is  spiritual,  taking  cognizance 
not  only  of  outward  acts,  but  of  feelings,  not  only  of  active 
feelings,  but  of  the  inherent  states  of  the  mind  whence  these 
[iTzcd-ufxiac)  spring;  if  it  condemns  all  want  of  conformity  to  its 
own  inflexible  standard  of  complete  perfection,  then  there  must 
be  an  end  to  all  hope  of  being  justified  by  the  law. 

Verse  16.  Therefore  it  is  of  faith,  that  it  might  be  6?/  grace; 
to  the  end  that  the  promise  might  be  sure  to  all  the  seed,  &c. 
This  and  the  following  verse  contain  the  conclusion  from  the 
previous  reasoning,  and  especially  from  the  two  preceding 
arguments:  'The  inheritance  promised  to  Abraham  and  his 
seed  must  be  either  of  the  law,  or  of  faith.  It  cannot  be  of  the 
law,  for  the  law  works  wrath,  therefore  it  is  of  faith.'  The 
expression  in  the  original  is  simply  did  touto  ix  maxtox;,  there' 
fore  of  faith.  It  matters  little,  so  far  as  the  sense  is  concerned, 
whether  we  supply  the  words  ol  xXr^povoixoc  eim  [therefore  the 
heirs  are  of  faith,)  from  ver.  14,  or  the  word  iTtajjeXca  {the 
promise,)  from  ver.  13;  or  with  Luther,  dcxauoauvrj,  out  of  the 
general  context — darum  muss  die  Gierechtigkeit  aus  dem  GrlaU' 
hen  Jcommen.  These  are  only  diflerent  ways  of  saying  the  same 
thing.  The  connection,  as  stated  above,  is  in  favour  of  the  first 
explanation.  The  inheritance  is  of  faith,  (Jva  xaxd  )[6.piv,)  in 
order  that  it  might  he  a  matter  of  grace.  And  it  is  of  grace, 
(ere  TO  tlvax  ^s^aeav  ttjv  iTtayjeXiav,)  in  order  that  the  promise 
might  he  sure.  If  salvation  be  in  any  form  or  to  any  degree 
dependent  on  the  merit,  the  goodness,  or  the  stability  of  man, 
it  never  can  be  sure,  nay,  it  must  be  utterly  unattainable. 
Unless  we  are  saved  by  grace,  we  cannot  be  saved  at  all.  To 
reject,  therefore,  a  gratuitous  salvation,  is  to  reject  the  only 
method  of  salvation  available  for  sinners.  Salvation  being  of 
grace,  suspended  on  the  simple  condition  of  faith,  without 
regard  to  parentage,  to  national  or  ecclesiastical  connection,  it 
is  available  for  all  classes  of  men.  And  therefore  the  apostle 
says,  '  The  promise  is  sure  (nauTc  T(p  aTzipfxau)  to  all  the  seed; 
i.  e.  to  all  the  spiritual  children  of  Abraham.  He  had  already 
shown  in  vs.  11,  12,  that  Abraham  was  the  father  of  believing 
Gentiles  as  well  as  of  believing  Jews.  The  word  anepfia  {seed) 
must  therefore,  in  this  connection,  be  understood  of  believers 


192  ROMANS  IV.  17. 

who,  in  a  higher  sense  than  mere  natural  descendants,  are  the 
children  of  Abraham.  Both  classes  of  his  seed  are  included  in 
the  promise  which  is  sure,  (ou  zip  kx  zoo  vofioo  fioi^ov,)  not  to  that 
of  the  law  only,  i.  e.  not  only  to  that  portion  of  the  seed  who 
are  of  the  law,  that  is,  believing  Jews,  but  also  {zoJ  sx  mazeoK; 
\i^padfjL)  to  that  which  is  of  the  faith  of  Abraham.  These  for- 
mulas are  indefinite,  and  susceptible,  taken  by  themselves,  of 
different  interpretations;  but  the  context  renders  all  plain, 
Paul  is  speaking  of  the  spiritual  children  of  Abraham ;  of  those 
who  are  heirs  of  the  inheritance  promised  to  him.  Of  these 
there  are  two  classes;  believing  Jews  and  believing  Gentiles. 
The  former  are  distinguished  as  {kx  vofjtou)  of  the  law,  the  latter 
as  of  the  faith  of  Abraham,  because  their  connection  with  him 
is  purely  spiritual,  whereas  the  Jewish  believers  were  connected 
with  him  by  a  twofold  tie — the  one  natural,  the  other  spiritual. 
Who  is  the  father  of  us  all,  i.  e.  of  all  believers.  The  highest 
privilege  of  New  Testament  saints  is  to  be  partakers  of  the 
inheritance  promised  to  Abraham.  They  are  not  exalted  above 
him,  but  united  with  him  in  the  blessings  which  flow  from  union 
with  Christ. 

Verse  17.    As  it  is  written,  I  have  made  thee  a  father  of 
many   nations.    Gen.   xvii.  5.     This    declaration,    the   apostle 
informs  us,  contains  a  great  deal  more  than  the  assurance  that 
the  natural  descendants  Abraham  should  be  very  numerous. 
Taken  in  connection  with   the  promise,  that  "in  him  all  the 
nations  of  the  earth  should  be  blessed,"  it  refers  to  his  spiritual 
as  well  as  his  natural  seed,  and  finds  its  full  accomplishment  in 
the  extension  of  the  blessing  promised  to  him,  to  those  of  all 
nations  who  are  his  children  by  faith.     This  clause  is  very  pro- 
perly marked  as  a  parenthesis,  as  the  preceding  one,  "who  is 
the  father  of  us  all,"  must  be  connected  immediately  with  the 
following  words,  before  him  whom  he  believed,  even  G-od,  who 
quickeneth  the  dead,  &c.     The  words   xazhavzt  oh   imazsLKTS 
dsod,    admit   of  different    explanations.     They   are    commonly 
regarded  as  an  example  of  the  substantive  being  attracted  to 
the  case  of  the  relative,  instead  of  the  relative  to  that  of  the 
substantive,   Ssou   being  in  the  genitive,  because  oh  is.     The 
clause  may  therefore  be  resolved  thus :  xazkvavzi  Btoo  w  kma- 
z£0(T£,  before  G-od  whom  he  believed.     To  this,  however,  it  is 


ROMANS  IV.  17.  193 

ol>jected,  that  this  form  of  attraction  with  the  dative  is  very 
unusual,  and  therefore  Winer,  §  24,  2,  i,  and  others,  adopt  the 
simple  explanation,  xarsvavzc  Osou  xariuavu  oh  imatsuas,  (before 
(rod,  before  lohom  he  believed.)  The  sense  in  either  case  is 
the  same.  Abraham  is  the  father  of  us  all,  (xaripavre,)  before^ 
in  the  sight  of  that  God  in  whom  he  believed.  God  looked  upon 
him  as  such.  He  stood  before  his  omniscient  eye,  surrounded 
by  many  nations  of  children. 

It  is  not  unusual  for  the  apostle  to  attach  to  the  name  of  God 
a  descriptive  periphrase,  bringing  into  view  some  divine  attri- 
bute or  characteristic  suited  to  the  subject  in  hand.  So  here, 
when  speaking  of  God's  promising  to  Abraham,  a  childless  old 
man,  a  posterity  as  numerous  as  the  stars  of  heaven,  it  was 
most  appropriate  to  refer  to  the  omnipotence  of  God,  to  whom 
nothing  is  impossible.  Abraham  believed,  what  to  all  human 
appearance  never  could  happen,  because  God,  who  made  the 
promise,  is  he  ivho  quickeneth  the  dead,  and  calleth  those  things 
ivhich  be  not,  as  though  they  were.  To  originate  life  is  the  pre- 
rogative of  God.  It  requires  almighty  power,  and  is  therefore 
in  Scripture  specified  as  one  of  God's  peculiar  works ;  see  Deut. 
xxxii.  39,  1  Sam.  ii.  6,  2  Kings  v.  7,  Ps.  Ixviii.  20.  The  being 
who  can  call  the  dead  to  life,  must  be  able  to  fulfil  to  one, 
although  as  good  as  dead,  the  promise  of  a  numerous  posterity. 
The  other  clause  in  this  passage,  {xal  xaXoovrot;  ra  fj.rj  ovra  uj:; 
oura,)  and  calling  things  that  be  not,  as  being,  is  more  doubtful. 
There  are  three  interpretations  of  these  words,  founded  on  three 
different  senses  of  the  word  (xaXelv)  to  call.  1.  To  call,  means  to 
command,  to  control,  to  muster  or  dispose  of.  Thus  the  psalm- 
ist says,  "  The  mighty  God,  even  the  Lord  hath  spoken,  and 
called  the  earth,  from  the  rising  of  the  sun  unto  the  going  down 
thereof."  Isaiah,  speaking  of  the  stars,  says,  "Who  .  .  .  bring- 
eth  out  their  host  by  number :  he  calleth  them  all  by  name,  by 
the  greatness  of  his  might,"  xl.  26,  also  Ps.  cxlvii.  4,  Isa.  xlv.  3, 
xlviii.  13.  This  gives  a  sense  perfectly  suited  to  the  context. 
God  is  described  as  controlling  with  equal  ease  things  which 
are  not,  and  those  which  are.  The  actual  and  the  possible  are 
equally  subject  to  his  command.  All  things  are  present  to  his 
view,  and  all  are  under  his  control.  This  interpretation  also  is 
suited  to  the  peculiar  form  of  expression,  who  calls  {za.  jutj  ovra 
13 


194  ROMANS  IV.  1—17. 

a>C  opva,)  things  not  being,  as  being.  It  gives  ^c  its  appropri- 
ate force.  2.  To  call,  however,  is  often  used  to  express  the 
creating  energy  of  God.  See  Isa.  xli.  4,  xlviii.  13.  Compare 
Ps.  xxix.  3 — 9.  Philo  de  Great.,  to.  jj.rj  dura  exdhasu  ecz  to 
shou.  This  also  gives  a  good  sense,  as  the  omnipotence  of  God 
cannot  be  more  forcibly  expressed  than  by  saying,  '  He  calls 
things  not  existing  into  existence.'  But  the  difficulty  is,  that 
(be  dura  is  not  equivalent  with  srV  to  slvai,  nor  with  iffo/xeva,  nor 
with  £:c  TO  elvac  W(;  ovTa,  as  Kbllner  and  De  Wette  explain  it. 
This  indeed  is  not  an  impossible  meaning,  inasmuch  as  ovTa,  as 
Fritzsche  says,  may  be  the  accusative  of  the  eflfect,  as  in  Philip, 
iii.  21,  "  He  shall  change  our  vile  body  {a{jfi[jLop(pov)  like  unto 
his  gloi-ious  body,"  i.  e.  so  as  to  be  like;  see  also  1  Thess.  iii.  13. 
As,  however,  the  former  interpretation  gives  so  good  a  sense, 
there  is  no  need  of  resorting  to  these  constrained  explanations. 
3.  To  call,  is  often  used  to  express  the  effectual  calling  of  men 
by  the  Holy  Spirit.  Hence  some  understand  the  apostle  as 
here  saying,  '  God  calls  to  be  his  children  those  who  were  not 
children.'  But  this  is  entirely  foreign  to  the  context.  Paul 
is  presenting  the  ground  of  Abraham's  faith  in  God.  He 
believed,  because  God  was  able  to  accomplish  all  things. 
Everything  is  obedient  to  his  voice. 

DOCTRINE. 

1.  If  the  greatest  and  best  men  of  the  old  dispensation  had 
to  renounce  entirely  dependence  upon  their  works,  and  to 
accept  of  the  favour  of  God  as  a  gratuity,  justification  by  works 
must,  for  all  men,  be  impossible,  vs.  2,  3. 

2.  No  man  can  glory,  tliat  is,  complacently  rejoice  in  his 
own  goodness  in  the  sight  of  God.  And  this  every  man  of  an 
enlightened  conscience  feels.  The  doctrine  of  justification  by 
works,  therefore,  is  inconsistent  with  the  inward  testimony  of 
conscience,  and  can  never  give  true  peace  of  mind,  ver.  2. 

3.  The  two  methods  of  justification  cannot  be  united.  They 
are  as  inconsistent  as  wages  and  a  free  gift.  If  of  works,  it  is 
not  of  grace ;  and  if  of  grace,  it  is  not  of  works,  vs.  4,  5. 

4.  As  God  justifies  the  ungodly,  it  cannot  be  on  the  ground 
of  their  own  merit,  but  must  be  by  the  imputation  of  a  right- 


ROMANS  IV.  1—17.  195 

eousness  which  does  not  personally  belong  to  them,  and  which 
they  received  by  faith,  vs.  5,  6,  11. 

5.  The  blessings  of  the  gospel,  and  the  method  of  justifica- 
tion which  it  proposes,  are  suited  to  all  men ;  and  are  not  to  be 
confined  by  sectarian  limits,  or  bound  down  to  ceremonial 
observances,  vs.  9 — 11. 

6.  The  sacraments  and  ceremonies  of  the  Church,  although 
in  the  highest  degree  useful  when  viewed  in  their  proper  light, 
become  ruinous  when  perverted  into  grounds  of  confidence. 
What  answers  well  as  a  sign,  is  a  miserable  substitute  for  the 
thing  signified.  Circumcision  will  not  serve  for  righteousness, 
nor  baptism  for  regeneration,  ver.  10. 

7.  As  Abraham  is  the  father  of  all  believers,  all  believers  are 
brethren.  There  is  neither  Jew  nor  Gentile,  bond  nor  free, 
among  them  as  Christians,  vs.  11,  12. 

8.  The  seed  of  Abraham,  or  true  believers,  with  Jesus  Christ 
their  head,  are  the  heirs  of  the  world.  To  them  it  will  ulti- 
mately belong ;  even  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  earth  shall  be 
their  possession,  ver.  13. 

9.  To  speak  of  justification  by  obedience  to  a  law  which  we 
have  broken,  is  a  solecism.  That  which  condemns  cannot 
justify,  ver.  15, 

10.  Nothing  is  sure  for  sinners  that  is  not  gratuitous.  A 
promise  suspended  on  obedience,  they  could  never  render  sure. 
One  entirely  gratuitous  needs  only  to  be  accepted  to  become 
ours,  ver.  16. 

11.  It  is  the  entire  freeness  of  the  gospel,  and  its  requiring 
faith  as  the  condition  of  acceptance,  which  renders  it  suited  to 
all  ages  and  nations,  ver.  16. 

12.  The  proper  object  of  faith  is  the  divine  promise;  or 
God  considered  as  able  and  determined  to  accomplish  his 
word,  ver.  17. 

REMAKKS. 

1.  The  renunciation  of  a  legal  self-righteous  spirit  is  the  first 
requisition  of  the  gospel.  This  must  be  done,  or  the  gospel 
cannot  be  accepted.  'He  who  works,'  i.  e.  who  trusts  in  his 
works,  refuses  to  be  saved  by  grace,  vs.  1 — 5. 


196  ROMANS  IV.  18—25. 

2.  The  more  intimately  we  are  acquainted  with  our  own 
hearts  and  with  the  character  of  God,  the  more  ready  shall  we 
be  to  renounce  our  own  righteousness,  and  to  trust  in  his 
mercy,  vs.  2,  3. 

3.  Those  only  are  truly  happy  and  secure,  who,  under  a 
sense  of  ill-desert  and  helplessness,  cast  themselves  upon  the 
grace  and  promise  of  God,  vs.  7,  8. 

4.  Nothing  is  more  natural,  and  nothing  has  occurred  more 
extensively  in  the  Christian  Church,  than  the  perversion  of  the 
means  of  grace  into  grounds  of  dependence.  Thus  it  was  with 
circumcision,  and  thus  it  is  with  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper  ; 
thus  too  with  prayer,  fasting,  &c.  This  is  the  rock  on  which 
millions  have  been  shipwrecked,  vs.  9 — 12. 

5.  There  is  no  hope  for  those  who,  forsaking  the  grace  of 
God,  take  refuge  in  a  law  which  worketh  wrath,  ver.  15. 

6.  All  things  are  ours  if  we  are  Christ's ;  heirs  of  the  life 
that  now  is,  and  of  that  which  is  to  come,  ver.  13. 

7.  As  the  God  in  whom  believers  trust  is  he  to  whom  all 
things  are  known,  and  all  things  are  subject,  they  should  be 
strong  in  faith,  giving  glory  to  God,  ver.  17. 


ROMANS  IV.  18—25. 

ANALYSIS. 

The  object  of  this  section  is  the  illustration  of  the  faith  of 
Abraham,  and  the  application  of  his  case  to  our  instruction. 
With  regard  to  Abraham's  faith,  the  apostle  states,  first,  its 
object,  viz.  the  divine  promise,  ver.  18.  He  then  illustrates  its 
strength,  by  a  reference  to  the  apparent  impossibility  of  the 
thing  promised,  vs.  19,  20.  The  ground  of  Abraham's  con- 
fidence was  the  power  and  veracity  of  God,  ver.  21.  The  con- 
sequence was,  that  he  was  justified  by  his  faith,  ver.  22.  Hence 
it  is  to  be  inferred  that  this  is  the  true  method  of  justification ; 
for  the  record  was  made  to  teach  us  this  truth.  We  are  situ- 
ated as  Abraham  was;  we  are  called  upon  to  believe  in  the 
Almighty  God,  who,  by  raising  up  Christ  from  the  dead,  has 
accepted  him  as  the  propitiation  for  our  sins,  vs.  23 — 25. 


ROMANS  IV.  18.  197 

COMMENTARY. 

Verse  18.  Who  against  hope  believed  in  hope.  Here  i;r'  ehrcdt 
may  be  taken  adverbially,  confidently:  'Against  all  human  hope 
or  reasonable  expectation,  he  confidently  believed.'  Or  it  may 
indicate  the  subjective  ground  of  his  faith:  he  believed,  because 
he  had  a  hope  founded  on  the  promise  of  God.  He  believed, 
that  he  might  become  the  father  of  many  nations.  The  Greek 
is,  £ic  TO  ytvia&ac  aurbv  narepa,  x.t.L,  that  is,  according  to  one 
explanation,  the  object  of  his  faith  was,  that  he  should  be  the 
father  of  many  nations.  The  idea  thus  expressed  is  correct. 
Abraham  did  believe  that  God  would  make  him  the  father  of 
many  nations.  But  to  this  it  is  objected  that  Ttiazeueiv  src,  with 
an  infinitive  used  as  a  substantive,  although  grammatically  cor- 
rect, is  a  construction  which  never  occurs.  Had  the  apostle, 
therefore,  intended  to  express  the  object  of  Abraham's  faith,  he 
would  probably  have  used  oti,  he  believed  that  he  should  be,  &c. 
Others  make  er'c  rb  ysvsad^ac  express  the  result  of  his  faith:  'He 
believed  . . .  and  hence  he  became,'  &c.  The  consequence  of  his 
faith  was,  that  the  promise  was  fulfilled.  Most  recent  commenta- 
tors assume  that  e^c  with  the  infinitive  here,  as  it  commonly  does, 
expresses  design,  or  intention ;  not  however  the  design  of  Abra- 
ham, but  of  God :  '  He  believed  in  order  that,  agreeably  to  the 
purpose  of  God,  he  might  become  the  father  of  many  nations.' 
This  best  agrees  with  what  is  said  in  ver.  11,  and  with  the  con- 
text. According  to  that  which  was  spoTcen,  So  shall  thy  seed 
be.  This  is  a  reference  to  the  promise  which  was  the  object  of 
Abraham's  faith.  It  is  a  quotation  from  Gen.  xv.  5.  The 
word  so  refers  to  the  stars  of  heaven,  mentioned  in  the  passage 
as  it  stands  in  the  Old  Testament.  The  promise,  therefore, 
particularly  intended  by  the  apostle  is,  that  Abraham  should 
be  the  father  of  many  nations,  or  that  his  seed  should  be  aS 
numerous  as  the  stars.  It  has  already  been  seen,  however,  that 
the  apostle  understood  this  promise  as  including  far  more  than 
that  the  natural  descendants  of  Abraham  should  be  very  numer- 
ous ;  see  vs.  13,  17.  The  expression  in  the  text  is  a  concise 
allusion  to  the  various  promises  made  to  the  ancient  patriarch, 
which  had  reference  to  all  nations  being  blessed  through 
him.     The  promise  of  a  numerous  posterity,  therefore,  included 


198  .       ROMANS  IV.  19—21. 

the  promise  of  Christ  and  his  redemption.  This  is  evident, 
1.  Because  Paul  had  been  speaking  of  a  promise  (ver.  16,)  in 
which  believing  Jews  and  Gentiles  were  alike  interested;  see 
Gal.  iii.  14.  2.  Because  Paul  asserts  and  argues  that  the  seed 
promised  to  Abraham,  and  to  which  the  promise  related,  was 
Jesus  Christ,  Gal.  iii.  16.  3.  So  Abraham  himself  understood 
it,  according  to  the  declaration  of  our  Saviour;  John  viii.  56, 
"Abraham  rejoiced  to  see  my  day;  and  he  saw  it,  and  was 
glad."  He  looked  forward  under  the  greatest  discouragements 
to  the  Redeemer  as  yet  to  come.  We  have  the  easier  task  to 
look  back  to  the  same  Deliverer,  who  has  died  for  our  sins,  and 
risen  again  for  our  justification,  ver.  25. 

Verse  19.  And  being  not  weak  in  faith,  he  considered  not 
his  own  body,  now  dead,  &c.  The  18th  verse  had  stated  it  was 
contrary  to  all  appearances  that  Abraham  believed;  this  verse 
states  the  circumstances  which  rendered  the  accomplishment  of 
the  promise  an  apparent  impossibility,  viz.  his  own  advanced 
age,  and  the  age  and  barrenness  of  his  wife.  These  circum- 
stances he  did  not  consider,  that  is,  he  did  not  allow  them  to 
have  weight,  he  did  not  fix  his  mind  on  the  difficulties  of  the 
case.  Had  he  been  weak  in  faith,  and  allowed  himself  to  dwell 
on  the  obstacles  to  the  fulfilment  of  the  divine  promise,  he 
would  have  staggered.  This  does  not  imply  that  there  was  no 
inward  conflict  with  doubt  in  Abraham's  mind.  It  only  says, 
that  his  faith  triumphed  over  all  difficulties.  "The  mind,"  says 
Calvin,  "is  never  so  enlightened  that  there  are  no  remains  of 
ignorance,  nor  the  heart  so  established  that  there  is  no  misgiv- 
ings. With  these  evils  of  our  nature,"  he  adds,  "faith  main- 
tains a  perpetual  conflict,  in  which  conflict  it  is  often  sorely 
shaken  and  put  to  great  stress;  but  still  it  conquers,  so  that 
believers  may  be  said  to  be  in  ipsa  injirmitate  Jirmissimi." 
Paul  says  Abraham  was  not  weak,  t^  mavei,  as  to  faith. 

Verses  20,  21.  He  staggered  not  at  the  promise  of  Crod;  oo 
dcexpi&rj.  The  aorist  passive  is  here  used  in  a  middle  sense,  he 
was  not  in  strife  with  himself,  i.  e.  he  did  not  doubt ;  £«c  riyv 
knayyeXiav,  in  reference  to  the  promise  of  God ;  r^  ajiiaria,  the 
dative  has  a  causal  force,  through  unbelief.  Want  of  faith  in 
God  did  not  cause  him  to  doubt  the  divine  promise,  dXka,  but, 
i.  e.  on  the  contrary;  ivedui^afLto^rj,  not  middle,  made  himself 


ROMANS  IV.  22.  199 

strong,  but  passive,  he  was  made  strong;  rjj  Tzcarei,  either  h^,  or 
as  to  faith.  Griving  glory  to  Grod;  that  is,  the  strength  was 
manifested  in  his  giving  glory  to  God.  To  give  glory  to  God, 
is  to  take  him  to  be  what  he  really  is,  almighty  and  faithful. 
It  is  to  show  by  our  conduct  that  we  give  him  credit,  (so  to 
speak,)  that  he  will  and  can  do  what  he  says.  Therefore  the 
apostle  adds,  xac  nkrjpoipoprjd^eliz,  and  being  fully  persuaded; 
that  is,  he  gave  glory  to  God  by  being  fully  persuaded  that 
what  he  had  promised  he  was  able  also  to  perform.  "  Quod, 
attdit,"  says  Calvin,  "dedisse  gloriam  Deo,  in  eo  notandum  est, 
non  posse  Deo  plus  honoris  deferri  quam  dum  fide  obsignamus 
ejus  veritatem;  sicuti  rursus  nulla  ei  gravior  contumelia  inuri 
potest  quam  dum  respuitur  oblata  ab  ipso  gratia,  vel  ejus  verbo 
derogatur  auctoritas.  Quare  hoc  in  ejus  cultu  prsecipuum  est 
caput,  promissiones  ejus  obedienter  amplecti :  vera  religio  a  fide 
incipit."  It  is  therefore  a  very  great  error  for  men  to  suppose 
that  to  doubt  is  an  evidence  of  humility.  On  the  contrary,  to 
doubt  God's  promise,  or  his  love,  is  to  dishonour  him,  because 
it  is  to  question  his  word.  Multitudes  refuse  to  accept  his  grace, 
because  they  do  not  regard  themselves  as  worthy,  as  though 
their  worthiness  were  the  ground  on  which  that  grace  is  offered. 
The  thing  to  be  believed  is,  that  God  accepts  the  unworthy ; 
that  for  Christ's  sake,  he  justifies  the  unjust.  Many  find  it  far 
harder  to  believe  that  God  can  love  them,  notwithstanding  their 
sinfulness,  than  the  hundred-years-old  patriarch  did  to  believe 
that  he  should  be  the  father  of  many  nations.  Confidence  in 
God's  word,  a  full  persuasion  that  he  can  do  what  seems  to  us 
impossible,  is  as  necessary  in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other.  The 
sinner  honours  God,  in  trusting  his  grace,  as  much  as  Abraham 
did  in  trusting  his  power. 

Verse  22.  Therefore  also  it  was  imputed  to  him  for  right- 
eousness. That  is,  the  faith  of  Abraham  was  imputed  to  him 
for  righteousness.  He  was  accepted  as  righteous  on  account 
of  his  faith ;  not  that  faith  itself  was  the  ground,  but  the  con- 
dition of  his  justification.  He  believed,  and  God  accepted  him 
as  righteous ;  just  as  now  we  believe,  and  are  accepted  as  right- 
eous, not  on  account  of  any  merit  in  our  faith,  but  simply  on 
the  ground  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  which  is  imputed  to 
us  when  we  believe;    that  is,  it  is  given  to  us,  whenever  we 


200  ROMANS  IV.  23,  24. 

are  willing  to  receive  and  rest  upon  it.  "Nihil  plus  conferre 
fides  nobis  potest,  quam  a  verbo  acceperit.  Quare  non  protinus 
Justus  erit,  qui  generali  tantum  confusaque  notitia  imbutus 
Deum  veracem  esse  statuet,  nisi  in  promissione  gratiae  quiescat." 
Faith  justifies  by  appropriating  to  ourselves  the  divine  promise. 
But  if  that  promise  does  not  refer  to  our  justification,  faith 
cannot  make  us  righteous.  The  object. of  justifying  or  saving 
faith,  that  is,  of  those  acts  of  faith  which  secure  our  acceptance 
with  God,  is  not  the  divine  veracity  in  general,  nor  the  divine 
authority  of  the  Scriptures,  but  the  specific  promise  of  gratu- 
itous acceptance  through  the  mediation  and  merit  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ. 

Verses  23,  24.  Now,  it  was  not  written  for  Ms  sake  alone, 
that  it  was  imputed  to  him.  The  record  concerning  the  faith 
and  consequent  justification  of  Abraham,  was  not  made  with  the 
simple  intention  of  giving  a  correct  history  of  that  patriarch. 
It  had  a  much  higher  purpose.  Abraham  was  a  representative 
person.  What  was  true  of  him,  was  true  of  all  others  who  stood 
in  the  same  relation  to  God.  The  method  in  which  he  was  jus- 
tified, is  the  method  in  which  other  sinners  must  be  justified. 
That  he  was  justified  by  faith,  is  recorded  in  the  Scriptures  to 
be  a  perpetual  testimony  as  to  the  true  method  of  justification 
before  God.  The  apostle  therefore  adds,  that  it  was  di  j^/zwc, 
on  our  account.  That  is,  on  account  of  those  to  whom  it  shall 
be  imputed;  oc<:  fxeXXec  Xoyc^ecrd-ac,  to  whom  it  is  appointed  to  be 
imputed,  in  case  they  should  believe.  As  all  men  are  sinners, 
the  method  in  which  one  was  certainly  justified  is  the  method 
by  w^hich  others  may  secure  the  same  blessing.  If  Abraham 
'was  justified  by  faith,  we  may  be  justified  by  faith.  If  the 
object  of  Abraham's  faith  was  the  promise  of  redemption,  the 
same  must  be  the  object  of  our  faith.  He  believed  in  God  as 
quickening  the  dead,  that  is,  as  able  to  raise  up  from  one  as 
good  as  dead,  the  promised  Redeemer.  Therefore  those  to 
whom  faith  shall  now  be  imputed  for  righteousness  are  described 
as  those  who  believe  that  G-od  hath  raised  up  Jesus  from  the 
dead.  By  thus  raising  him  from  the  dead,  he  declared  him  to 
be  his  Son,  and  the  seed  of  Abraham,  in  whom  all  the  nations 
of  the  earth  were  to  be  blessed.  The  object  of  the  Christian's 
faith,  therefore,  is  the  same  as  the  object  of  the ,  faith  of  Abra- 


ROMANS  IV.  25.  201 

ham.  Both  believe  the  promise  of  redemption  through  the 
promised  seed,  which  is  Christ.  When  we  are  said  to  believe 
in  God,  who  raised  up  Christ,  it  of  course  implies  that  we 
believe  that  Christ  was  thus  raised  up.  As  the  resurrection  of 
Christ  was  the  great  decisive  evidence  of  the  divinity  of  his 
mission,  and  the  validity  of  all  his  claims,  to  believe  that  he 
rose  from  the  dead,  is  to  believe  he  was  the  Son  of  God,  the 
propitiation  for  our  sins,  the  Redeemer  and  the  Lord  of  men ; 
that  he  was  all  he  claimed  to  be,  and  had  accomplished  all  he 
purposed  to  effect.  Compare  Rom.  x.  9,  Acts  i.  22,  iv.  33, 
1  Cor.  XV.,  and  other  passages,  in  which  the  resurrection  of 
Christ  is  spoken  of  as  the  corner-stone  of  the  gospel,  as  the 
great  fact  to  be  proved,  and  which,  being  proved,  involves  all 
the  rest. 

Verse  25.  Who  was  delivered  for  our  offences,  and  raised 
again  for  our  justification.  This  verse  is  a  comprehensive  state- 
ment of  the  gospel.  Christ  was  delivered  unto  death  for  our 
offences,  i.  e.  on  account  of  them,  and  for  their  expiation ;  see 
Isa.  liii.  5,  6,  Heb.  ix.  28,  1  Peter  ii.  21.  This  delivering  of 
Christ  is  ascribed  to  God,  Rom.  viii.  32,  Gal.  i.  3,  and  else- 
where ;  and  to  himself.  Tit.  ii.  14,  Gal.  ii.  20.  It  was  by  the 
diyine^urpose  and  counsel  he  suffered  for  the  expiation  of  sin ; 
and  he  gave  himself  willingly  to  death.  "  He  was  led  like  a 
lamb  to  the  slaughter,  and  as  a  sheep  before  her  shearers  is 
dumb,  so  he  opened  not  his  mouth."  Christ  is  said  to  have 
been  delivered  unto  death,  dta  za  TtapaTiTcofiara  'qiJ.iov,  and  to 
have  been  raised,  dca  t7]v  ocxacuxrcv  ^[xdiv;  that  is,  he  was 
delivered  in  order  that  our  sins  might  be  expiated,  and  he  was 
raised  in  order  that  we  might  be  justified.  His  death  and  his 
resurrection  were  alike  necessary ;  his  death,  as  a  satisfaction 
to  divine  justice.  He  bore  our  sins  in  his  own  body  on  the 
tree.  That  is,  he  bore  the  punishment  of  our  sins.  "  Significat 
ergo  Paulus,"  says  Calvin,  " satisfactionem  pro  peccatis  nostris 
in  cruce  fuisse  peractam.  Nam  ut  Christus  nos  in  gratiam 
Patris  restitueret,  reatum  nosti'um  ab  ipso  aboleri  oportuit; 
quod  fieri  non  poterat,  nisi  poenam,  cui  solvendae  pares  non 
eramus,  nostro  nomine  lueret."  His  resurrection  was  no  less 
necessary,  first,  as  a  proof  that  his  death  had  been  accepted  as 
an  expiation  for  our  sins.    Had  he  not  risen,  it  would  have  been 


202  ROMANS  IV.  25. 

evident  that  he  was  not  what  he  claimed  to  be.  We  should  be 
yet  in  our  sins,  1  Cor.  xv.  17,  and  therefore  still  under  con- 
demnation. Our  ransom,  in  that  case,  instead  of  being  publicly 
accepted,  had  been  rejected.  And  secondly,  in  order  to  secure 
the  continued  application  of  the  merits  of  his  sacrifice,  he  rose 
from  the  dead,  and  ascended  on  high,  there  to  appear  before 
God  for  us.  He  stands  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  ever  to  make 
intercession  for  his  people,  thereby  securing  for  them  the  benefits 
of  his  redemption.  With  a  dead  Saviour,  a  Saviour  over  whom 
death  had  triumphed  and  held  captive,  our  justification  had  been 
for  ever  impossible.  As  it  was  necessary  that  the  high  priest, 
under  the  old  economy,  should  not  only  slay  the  victim  at  the 
altar,  but  carry  the  blood  into  the  most  holy  place,  and  sprinkle 
it  upon  the  mercy-seat;  so  it  was  necessary  not  only  that  our 
great  High  Priest  should  sufi"er  in  the  outer  court,  but  that  he 
should  pass  into  heaven,  to  present  his  righteousness  before 
God  for  our  justification.  Both,  therefore,  as  the  evidence  of 
the  acceptance  of  his  satisfaction  on  our  behalf,  and  as  a  neces- 
sary step  to  secure  the  application  of  the  merits  of  his  sacrifice, 
the  resurrection  of  Christ  was  absolutely  essential,  even  for  our 
justification.  Its  relation  to  inward  spiritual  life  and  eternal 
blessedness  is  not  here  brought  into  view ;  for  Paul  is  not  here 
speaking  of  our  sanctification.  That  dcxaiojacc;  means  justifica- 
tion, and_not  the  act  of  making  holy,  need  hardly  be  remarked. 
That  follows  of  necessity,  not  only  from  the  signification  of  the 
word,  but  from  the  whole  scope  of  this  part  of  the  epistle.  It 
is  only  by  those  who  make  justification  identical  with  regenera- 
tion, that  this  is  called  into  question.  "Pervertunt  autem," 
says  Calovius,  "sententiam  Apostoli  Papistas,  cum  id  eum  velle 
contendunt,  mortem  Christi  exemplar  fuisse  mortis  peccatorum, 
resurrectionem  autem  exemplar  renovationis  et  regenerationis 
internge,  per  quam  in  novitate  vitae  ambulamus,  quia  hie  non 
agitur  vel  de  morte  peccatorum,  vel  de  renovatione  et  novitate 
vitse ;  de  quibus,  cap.  vi.,  demum  agere  incipit  Apostolus ;  sed 
de  non  imputatione  vel  remissione  peccatorum,  et  imputatione 
justitiae  vel  justificatione."  Olshausen  agrees  substantially 
with  the  Romish  interpretation  of  this  passage,  as  he  gives 
dcxalujaci^  an  impossible  sense,  viz.  (die  den  neuen  Menschen 
schafi"ende  Thatigkeit,)  the  regenerating  activity  of  God.     It 


ROMANS  IV.  18—25.  203 

will  be  observed,  that  the  theology  of  Olshausen,  and  of  the 
mystical  school  to  which  he  belongs,  has  far  greater  affinity  for 
the  Romish,  than  for  the  Protestant  system. 


DOCTRINE. 

1.  Faith  is  an  operative  assent  to  the  divine  testimony,  not 
the  reception  of  truth  as  something  which  can  be  proved  by  our 
own  arguments,  vs.  18,  20. 

2.  When  faith  is  genuine  it  is  founded  on  correct  apprehen- 
sions of  the  divine  character,  and  has  a  controlling  influence 
over  the  heart  and  life,  vs.  20,  21. 

3.  The  method  of  salvation  has  never  been  changed ;  Abra- 
ham was  not  only  saved  by  faith,  but  the  object  of  his  faith  was 
the  same  as  the  object  of  ours,  vs.  24,  17. 

4.  The  resurrection  of  Christ,  as  an  historical  fact,  estab- 
lished by  the  most  satisfactory  evidence,  (see  1  Cor.  xv.,) 
authenticates  the  whole  gospel.  As  surely  as  Christ  has  risen, 
so  surely  shall  believers  be  saved,  ver.  25. 


REMARKS. 

1.  The  true  way  to  have  our  faith  strengthened  is  not  to 
consider  the  difficulties  in  the  way  of  the  thing  promised,  but 
the  character  and  resources  of  Grod,  who  has  made  the  pro- 
mise, ver.  19. 

2.  It  is  as  possible  for  faith  to  be  strong  when  the  thing  pro- 
mised is  most  improbable,  as  when  it  is  probable.  Abraham's 
faith  should  serve  as  an  example  and  admonition  to  us.  He 
believed  that  a  Saviour  would  be  born  from  his  family,  when 
his  having  a  son  was  an  apparent  impossibility.  We  are  only 
called  upon  to  believe  that  the  Saviour  has  been  born,  has  suf- 
fered, and  risen  again  from  the  dead — facts  established  on 
the  strongest  historical,  miraculous,  and  spiritual  evidence, 
vs.  20,  24,  25. 

3.  Unbelief  is  a  very  great  sin,  as  it  implies  a  doubt  of  the 
veracity  and  power  of  God,  vs.  20,  21. 

4.  All  that  is  written  in  the  Scriptures  is  for  our  instruction. 
What  is   promised,    commanded,  or  threatened,  (unless  of  a 


204  ROMANS  V.  1—11. 

strictly  personal  nature,)  although  addressed  originally  to  indi- 
viduals, belongs  to  them  only  as  representatives  of  classes  of 
men,  and  is  designed  for  all  of  similar  character,  and  in  similar 
circumstances,  ver.  23. 

5.  The  two  great  truths  of  the  gospel  are,  that  Christ  died 
as  a  sacrifice  for  our  sins,  and  that  he  rose  again  for  our  justifi- 
cation. Whosoever,  from  the  heart,  believes  these  truths,  shall 
be  saved,  ver.  25,  Rom.  x.  9. 

6.  The  denial  of  the  propitiatory  death  of  Christ,  or  of  his 
resurrection  from  the  dead,  is  a  denial  of  the  gospel.  It  is  a 
refusing  to  be  saved  according  to  the  method  which  God  has 
appointed,  ver.  25. 


CHAPTER    V. 

CONTENTS. 

From  verse  I  to  11,  inclusive,  the  apostle  deduces  some  of  the 
more  obvious  and  consolatory  inferences  from  the  doctrine  of 
gratuitous  justification.  From  the  12th  verse  to  the  end,  he 
illustrates  his  great  principle  of  the  imputation  of  righteous- 
ness, or  the  regarding  and  treating  "the  many"  as  righteous, 
on  account  of  the  righteousness  of  one  man,  Christ  Jesus,  by  a 
reference  to  the  fall  of  all  men  in  Adam. 


ROMANS   V.  1—11. 

ANALYSIS. 

The  first  consequence  of  justification  by  faith  is,  that  we 
have  peace  with  God,  ver.  1.  The  second,  that  we  have  not 
only  a  sense  of  his  present  favour,  but  assurance  of  future 
glory,  ver.  2.  The  third,  that  our  affiictions,  instead  of  being 
inconsistent  with  the  divine  favour,  are  made  directly  conducive 
to  the  confirmation  of  our  hope ;  the  Holy  Spirit  bearing  witness 
to  the  fact  that  we  are  the  objects  of  the  love  of  God,  vs.  3 — 5. 


ROMANS  V.  1.  205 

The  fourth,  the  certainty  of  the  final  salvation  of  all  believers. 
This  is  argued  from  the  freeness  and  greatness  of  the  divine 
love ;  its  freeness  being  manifested  in  its  exercise  towards 
the  unworthy ;  and  its  greatness,  in  the  gift  of  the  Son  of  God, 
vs.  6 — 10.  Salvation  is  not  merely  a  future  though  certain 
good,  it  is  a  present  and  abundant  joy,  ver.  11. 


COMMENTARY. 

Yerse  1.  Therefore,  being  justified  by  faith,  we  have*  peace 
with  Grod;  that  is,  we  are  reconciled  to  God.  We  are  no  longer 
the  objects  of  God's  displeasure,  his  favour  having  been  propi- 
tiated by  the  death  of  his  Son,  ver.  10.  As  a  consequence  of 
this  reconciliation,  we  have  conscious  peace  with  God,  that  is, 
we  have  neither  any  longer  the  present  upbraidings  of  an  unap- 
peased  conscience,  nor  the  dread  of  divine  vengeance.  Both 
these  ideas  are  included  in  the  peace  here  spoken  of.  The 
latter,  however,  is  altogether  the  more  prominent.  The  phrase 
dpi^vrjv  iypniv  npo^  zbv  0e6u,  we  have  peace  in  regard  to  Gfod, 
properly  means,  God  is  at  peace  with  us,  his  dpfj  (wrath) 
towards  us  is  removed.  It  expresses,  as  Philippi*  says,  "  not  a 
state  of  mind,  but  a  relation  to  God."t  It  is  that  relation 
which  arises  from  the  expiation  of  sin,  and  consequently  justi- 
fication. We  are  no  longer  his  enemies,  in  the  objective  sense 
of  the  term,  (see  ver.  10,)  but  are  the  objects  of  his  favour. 
The  whole  context  still  treats  of  reconciliation  and  propitiation, 
of  the  removal  of  the  wrath  of  God  by  the  death  of  his  Son, 
and  not  of  inward  sanctification.  It  is  true  that  the  immediate 
and  certain  effect  of  God's  reconciliation  to  us  is  our  reconcilia- 
tion to  him.  If  he  is  at  peace  with  us,  we  have  inward  peace. 
Conscience  is  only  the  reflection  of  his  countenance,  the  echo, 

*  Instead  of  i;;(Of*0,  we  have  peace,  i^uifxa,  let  us  have,  is  read  in  the  MSS.  A. 
C.  D.  17,  18,  19,  22,  24,  34,  36,  37,  42,  44,  46,  55,  66,  in  the  Syriac,  Coptic,  and 
Vulgate  versions,  and  by  several  of  the  Fathers.  The  latter  reading  is  adopted 
by  Lachmann.  But  as  the  external  authorities  are  nearly  equally  divided,  and 
as  the  common  reading  gives  a  sense  so  much  better  suited  to  the  context,  it 
is  retained  by  the  majority  of  critical  editors. 

f  Commentar  tlber  den  Brief  Pauli  an  die  ROmer  von  Friederick  Adolph 
Philippi,  Doktor  und  ord.  Professor  der  Theologie  zu  Dorpat;  since  of 
Rostock. 


206  ROMANS  V.  2. 

often  feeble  and  indistinct,  often  terribly  clear  and  unmistaka- 
ble, of  his  judgment;  and  therefore  subjective  peace  uniformly 
attends  faith  in  the  love  of  God,  or  assurance  of  our  justifica- 
tion. Although,  therefore,  the  primary  idea  of  the  apostle  is, 
that  God  is  at  peace  with  us,  it  is  nevertheless  true  that  inward 
tranquillity  of  mind  is  the  fruit  of  justification  by  faith.  It  is 
peculiarly  an  evangelical  doctrine,  that  pious  afiections  are  the 
fruit  of  this  reconciliation  to  God,  and  not  the  cause  of  it.  Paul 
says  this  peace  is  the  result  of  justification  by  faith.  He  who 
relies  on  his  works  for  justification,  can  have  no  peace.  He  can 
neither  remove  the  displeasure  of  God,  nor  quiet  the  apprehen- 
sion of  punishment.  Peace  is  not  the  result  of  mere  gratuitous 
forgiveness,  but  of  justification,  of  a  reconciliation  founded 
upon  atonement.  The  enlightened  conscience  is  never  satisfied 
until  it  sees  that  God  can  be  just  in  justifying  the  ungodly; 
that  sin  has  been  punished,  the  justice  of  God  satisfied,  his  law 
honoured  and  vindicated.  It  is  when  he  thus  sees  justice  and 
mercy  embracing  each  other,  that  the  believer  has  that  peace 
which  passes  all  understanding ;  that  sweet  quiet  of  the  soul  in 
which  deep  humility,  in  view  of  personal  unworthiness,  is  min- 
gled with  the  warmest  gratitude  to  that  Saviour  by  whose  blood 
God's  justice  has  been  satisfied,  and  conscience  appeased. 
Hence  Paul  says  we  have  this  peace  through  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  It  is  not  through  ourselves  in  any  way,  neither  by  our 
own  merit,  nor  our  own  efforts.  It  is  all  of  grace.  It  is  all 
through  Jesus  Christ.  And  this  the  justified  soul  is  ever 
anxious  to  acknowledge.  '■'•Pacem  hahemus.  Singularis  justitiae 
fidei  fructus.  Nam  siquis  ab  operibus  conscientige  securitatem 
petere  velit,  (quod  in  profanis  et  brutis  hominibus  cernitur,) 
frustra  id  tentabit.  Aut  enim  contemptu  vel  oblivione  Divini 
judicii  sopitum  est  pectus,  aut  trepidatione  ac  formidine  quoque 
plenum  est,  donee  in  Christum  recubuerit.  Ipse  enim  solus  est 
pax  nostra.  Pax  ergo  conscientiae  serenitatem  significat,  quse 
ex  eo  nascitur,  quod  Deum  sibi  reconciliatum  sentit."   Calvin. 

Verse  2.  Bi/  whom  also  loe  have  access  by  faith  into  this 
grace,  &c.  This  verse  admits  of  different  interpretations.  Ac- 
cording to  one  view,  it  introduces  a  new  and  higher  benefit  than 
peace  with  God,  as  the  consequence  of  our  justification :  '  We 
have  not  only  peace,  but  access  (to  God,)  and  joyful  confidence 


ROMANS  V.  2.  207 

of  salvation.'  Besides  other  objections  to  this  interpretation, 
it  overlooks  the  diflference  between  lypiitv  and  kay^xafxtv,  ren- 
dering both,  toe  have:  'We  have  peace,  and  we  have  access;' 
whereas  loyfjxantv  is  properly,  we  have  had.  This  clause,  there- 
fore, instead  of  indicating  an  additional  and  higher  blessing 
than  the  peace  spoken  of  in  ver.  1,  expresses  the  ground  of  that 
p'sace:  'We  have  peace  with  God  through  Jesus  Christ  our 
Lord,  through  whom  also  we  have  had  access  into  this  grace.' 
So  Meyer,  Philippi,  &c.  '  We  are  indebted  to  Christ  not  only 
for  peace,  but  also  for  access  to  this  grace,  (this  state  of  justifi- 
cation,) which  is  the  ground  of  our  peace.'  The  word  Tzpoaayoiyq 
means  either  introduction  or  access.  In  Eph.  ii.  18,  and  iii.  12, 
it  has  the  latter  meaning,  which  may  be  retained  here.  In  both 
the  other  places  in  which  it  occurs,  it  is  used  of  access  to  God. 
Many  commentators  so  understand  it  in  this  place,  and  there- 
fore put  a  comma  after  ia^ijxa/jiev,  and  connect  maret  with  ere 
Tr]v  X'^P'^  rauzr^u.  The  sense  would  then  be,  '  Through  whom 
also  we  have  had  access  to  God,  by  faith  on  this  grace.'  The 
objections  to  this  explanation  are,  that  it  supposes  an  omission 
in  the  text,  and  that  the  expression  "faith  on  the  grace,"  has 
no  scriptural  analogy.  The  obviously  natural  construction  is 
to  connect  Trpoaaycopju  with  sr'c  ttjv  -j^dpcv  raurrjv,  as  is  done  in 
our  version,  and  by  the  great  majority  of  commentators,  and  to 
take  rfi  maree  instrumentally,  by  faith.  The  grace  to  which  we 
have  access,  or  into  which  we  have  been  introduced,  is  the  state 
of  justification.  The  fact,  therefore,  that  we  are  justified,  we, 
rather  than  others,  is  not  due  to  anything  in  us.  We  did  not 
open  the  way,  or  introduce  ourselves  into  this  state.  We  were 
brought  into  it  by  Christ.  "Accessus  quidem  nomine  initium 
salutis  a  Christo  esse  docens,  preparationes  excludit,  quibus 
stulti  homines  Dei  misericordiam  se  antevertere  putant;  acsi 
diceret,  Christum  nihil  promeritis  obviam  venire  manumque 
porrigere."  Calvin.  In  which  we  stand.  The  antecedent  of 
the  relative  (^)  is  not  mffvee,  but  ^dpcv;  in  which  grace  we 
stand;  that  is,  we  are  firmly  and  immovably  established.  So 
in  John  viii.  44,  it  is  said  of  Satan,  that  he  stood  not  {oo^ 
iffTT^xev)  in  the  truth,  did  not  remain  steadfast  therein.  1  Cor. 
XV.  1,  "Wherein  i/e  stand,"  2  Cor.  i.  24.  The  state,  therefore, 
into  which  the  believer  is  introduced  by  Christ,  is  not  a  preca- 


208  ROMANS  V.  2. 

rious  one.  He  has  not  only  firm  ground  on  which  to  stand,  but 
he  has  strength  divinely  imparted  to  enable  him  to  keep  his 
foothold.  And  rejoice  in  hope  of  the  glory  of  Crod.  The  word 
xabyijtioixax  is  one  of  Paul's  favourite  terms.  It  properly  means 
to  talk  of  ones  self,  to  praise  ones  self,  to  boast;  then  to  con- 
gratulate one's  self  to  speak  of  ourselves  as  glorious  or  blessed; 
and  then  to  felicitate  ourselves  in  anything  as  a  ground  of  con- 
fidence and  source  of  honour  and  blessedness.  Men  are  com- 
manded not  to  glory  {xao-)(^aa&(u)  in  themselves,  or  in  men,  or  in 
the  flesh,  but  in  God  alone.  In  this  passage  the  word  may  be 
rendered,  to  rejoice,  'we  rejoice  in  hope.'  Still  something  more 
than  mere  joy  is  intended.  It  is  a  glorying,  a  self-felicitation 
and  exultation,  in  view  of  the  exaltation  and  blessedness  which 
Christ  has  secured  for  us.  In  hope  of  the  glory  of  Crod.  The 
object  or  ground  of  the  rejoicing  or  boasting  expressed  by  this 
verb  is  indicated  here  by  e7:c;  commonly,  in  the  New  Testament, 
the  matter  of  the  boasting  is  indicated  by  iv,  sometimes  by 
uTtip  and  Tuepi.  The  glory  of  God  may  mean  that  glory  which 
God  gives,  or  that  glory  which  he  possesses.  In  either  case,  it 
refers  to  the  exaltation  and  blessedness  secured  to  the  believer, 
who  is  to  share  in  the  glory  of  his  divine  Redeemer.  "The 
glory  which  thou  gavest  me,"  said  our  Lord,  "I  have  given 
them,"  John  xvii.  22.  There  is  a  joyful  confidence  expressed 
in  these  words,  an  assurance  of  ultimate  salvation,  which  is  the 
appropriate  effect  of  justification.  We  are  authorized  and 
bound  to  feel  sure  that,  having  through  Jesus  Christ  been 
reconciled  to  God,  we  shall  certainly  be  saved.  This  is  only  a 
becoming  confidence  in  the  merit  of  his  sacrifice,  and  in  the  sin- 
cerity of  God's  love.  This  confidence  is  not  founded  on  our- 
selves, neither  on  the  preposterous  idea  that  we  deserve  the 
favour  of  God,  nor  the  equally  preposterous  idea  that  we  have  in 
ourselves  strength  to  persevere  in  faith  or  obedience.  Our  con- 
fidence is  solely  on  the  merit  of  Christ,  and  the  gratuitous  and 
infinite  love  of  God.  Although  this  assurance  is  the  legitimate 
effect  of  reconciliation,  and  the  want  of  it  is  evidence  of  weak- 
ness, still  in  this,  as  in  other  respects,  the  actual  state  of  the 
believer  generally  falls  far  short  of  the  ideal.  He  ever  lives 
below  his  privileges,  and  goes  limping  and  halting,  when  he 
should  mount  up  as  with  the  wings  of  the  eagle.     Still  it  is 


ROMANS  V.  3,  4.  209 

important  for  him  to  know  that  assurance  is  not  an  unseemly 
presumption,  but  a  privilege  and  duty.  "Hie  evertuntur," 
says  Calvin,  "pestilentissima  duo  sophistarum  dogmata,  alte- 
rum,  quo  jubent  Christianos  esse  contentos  conjectura  morali 
in  percipienda  erga  se  Dei  gratia,  alterum,  quo  tradunt  omnes 
esse  incertos  finalis  perseverentise.  Atqui  nisi  et  certa  in  pr?e- 
sens  intelligentia,  et  in  futu^'um  constans  ac  minime  dubia  sit 
persuasio,  quis  gloriari  auderet?" 

Verses  3,  4.  And  not  only  so,  hut  we  glory  in  tribulations 
also.  Not  only  do  we  rejoice  in  this  hope  of  future  glory,  but 
we  glory  in  tribulations  also.  Since  our  relation  to  God  is 
changed,  the  relation  of  all  things  to  us  is  changed.  Afflictions, 
which  before  were  the  expressions  of  God's  displeasure,  are  now 
the  benevolent  and  beneficent  manifestations  of  his  love.  And 
instead  of  being  inconsistent  with  our  filial  relation  to  him,  they 
serve  to  prove  that  he  regards  and  loves  us  as  his  children ;  Rom. 
viii.  18,  Heb.  xii.  6.  Tribulations,  therefore,  although  for  the 
present  not  joyous,  but  grievous,  become  to  the  believer  matter 
of  joy  and  thankfulness.  The  words  -/.auycojizda  iv  zax^  &Xi(pE(Jtv 
do  not  mean  that  we  glory  in  the  midst  of  afflictions,  but  on 
account  of  them.  They  are  themselves  the  matter  or  ground 
of  the  glorying.  So  the  Jews  are  said  to  glory  (iv)  in  the  law, 
others  glory  in  men,  the  believer  glories  in  the  Lord ;  so  con- 
stantly. Afflictions  themselves  are  to  the  Christian  a  ground  of 
glorying;  he  feels  them  to  be  an  honour  and  a  blessing.  This 
is  a  Sentiment  often  expressed  in  the  word  of  God.  Our  Lord 
says,  "Blessed  are  they  who  mourn;"  "Blessed  are  the  perse- 
cuted;" "Blessed  are  ye  when  men  shall  revile  you."  He  calls 
on  his  suffering  disciples  to  rejoice  and  be  exceeding  glad  when 
they  are  afflicted.  Matt.  v.  4,  10 — 12.  The  apostles  departed 
from  the  Jewish  council,  "rejoicing  that  they  were  counted 
worthy  to  suffer  shame  for  Christ's  name."  Acts  v.  41.  Peter 
calls  upon  Christians  to  Rejoice  when  they  are  partakers  of 
Christ's  sufferings,  and  pronounces  them  happy  when  they  are 
reproached  for  his  sake.  1  Pet.  iv.  13,  14.  And  Paul  says, 
"Most  gladly  therefore  will  I  glory  in  (on  account  of)  my 
infirmities,"  (i.  e.  my  sufferings.)  "I  take  pleasure,"  he  says, 
"in  infirmities,  in  reproaches,  in  necessities,  in  persecutions,  in 
distresses  for  Christ's  sake."  2  Cor.  xii.  10,  11.  This  is  not 
14 


210  ROMANS  V.  5. 

irrational  or  fanatical.  Christians  do  not  glory  in  suffering,  as 
such,  or  for  its  own  sake,  but  as  the  Bible  teaches,  1.  Because 
they  consider  it  an  honour  to  suffer  for  Christ.  2.  Because  they 
rejoice  in  being  the  occasion  of  manifesting  his  power  in  their 
support  and  deliverance ;  and,  3.  Because  suffering  is  made  the 
means  of  their  own  sanctification  and  preparation  for  usefulness 
here,  and  for  heaven  hereafter.  The  last  of  these  reasons  is 
that  to  which  the  apostle  refers  in  the  context.  We  glory  in 
afflictions,  he  says,  because  affliction  worheth  patience,  Onofioui^. 
constancy.  It  calls  into  exercise  that  strength  and  firmness 
evinced  in  patient  endurance  of  suffering,  and  in  perseverance 
in  fidelity  to  truth  and  duty,  under  the  severest  trials.  And 
this  constancy  worketh  experience,  3oxip.ij.     This  word  means, 

1.  Trial,  as  in  2  Cor.  viii.  2,  "In  a  great  trial  of  affliction." 
i.  e.  in  afiliction  which  is  a  trial,  that  which  puts  men  to  the  test. 

2.  Evidence,  or  proof,  as  in  2  Cor.  xiii.  3,  "Since  ye  seek  a 
proof  of  Christ  speaking  in  me."  Compare  2  Cor.  ii.  9,  Philip, 
ii.  22.  This  would  give  a  good  sense  here :  '  Constancy  produces 
evidence'  of  the  fidelity  of  God,  or  of  our  fidelity.  3.  The  word 
is  used  metonymically  for  the  result  of  trial,  i.  e.  approbation, 
or  that  which  is  proved  worthy  of  approbation :  '  doxcfrj  est 
qualitas  ejus,  qui  est  doxtfio^.'  Bengel.  It  is  tried  integrity,  a 
state  of  mind  which  has  stood  the  test.  Compare  James  i.  12, 
"Blessed  is  the  man  that  endureth  temptation,  (oc  bizoiiivst 
TTScpatTfjiou;)  for  when  he  is  tried  (ou  doxiftoi;  ytvopitvoi;)  he  shall 
receive  the  crown  of  life."  '^  TTZofioiJT^,  the  endurance  of  trial, 
therefore,  makes  a  man  d6xt/!jtO(;;  in  other  words,  it  worketh 
doxcfjiTJ.  It  produces  a  strong,  tested  faith.  Hence  the  parallel 
expression,  to  doxlficov  Ofjicou  r^c  Tccffzeoji;,  the  trying  of  your 
faith.  1  Pet.  i.  7.     And  this  doxifxij,  well  tested  faith,  or  this 

-endurance  of  trial  produces  hope;  tends  to  confirm  and 
strengthen  the  hope  of  the  glory  of  God,  which  we  owe  to  our 
justification  through  Jesus  Christ. 

Verse  5.  A7id  hope  maJceth  not  ashamed,  {xavaxayuvzt.)  Not 
to  make  ashamed,  is  not  to  put  us  to  the  shame  of  disappoint- 
ment. The  hope  of  the  believer,  says  Calvin,  "habet  certissi- 
mum  salutis  exitum."  It  certainly  eventuates  in  salvation. 
See  ix.  33.  The  hope  which  true  believers  entertain,  founded 
on  the  very  nature  of  pious  exercises,  shall  never  disappoint 


ROMANS  V.  6.  211 

them,  Ps.  xxii.  5.  The  ground  of  this  assurance,  however,  is 
not  the  strength  of  our  purpose,  or  confidence  in  our  own  good- 
ness, but  the  love  of  God.  The  latter  clause  of  the  verse  assigns 
the  reason  why  the  Christian's  hope  shall  not  be  found  delusive; 
it  is  because  the  love  of  Grod  is  shed  abroad  in  our  hearts,  by 
the  Holy  Q-host  given  unto  us.  '  The  love  of  God'  is  his  love  to 
uS,  and  not  ours  to  him,  as  appears  from  the  following  verses, 
in  which  the  apostle  illustrates  the  greatness  and  freeness  of 
this  love,  by  a  reference  to  the  unworthiness  of  its  objects.  To 
shed  abroad,  (ixxi'^urai,  it  has  been,  and  continues  to  be  shed 
abroad,)  is  to  communicate  abundantly,  and  hence  to  evince 
clearly,  Acts  ii.  17,  x.  45,  Titus  iii.  6.  This  manifestation  of 
divine  love  is  not  any  external  revelation  of  it  in  the  works  of 
Providence,  or  even  in«redemption,  but  it  is  in  our  hearts,  kv 
ra7c  xapdiaci;  ^fxwv,  diffused  abroad  within  our  hearts,  where  kv, 
in,  is  not  used  for  d<;,  into.  "The  love  of  God,"  says  Philippi, 
"does  not  descend  upon  us  as  dew  in  drops,  but  as  a  stream 
which  spreads  itself  abroad  through  the  whole  soul,  filling  it 
with  the  consciousness  of  his  presence  and  favour.  And  this 
inward  persuasion  that  we  are  the  objects  of  the  love  of  God,  is 
not  the  mere  result  of  the  examination  of  evidence,  nor  is  it  a 
vain  delusion,  but  it  is  produced  by  the  Holy  Ghost:  "The 
Spirit  itself  beareth  witness  with  our  spirits,  that  we  are  the 
children  of  God,"  Rom.  viii.  16,  2  Cor.  i.  21,  22,  Eph.  i.  14. 
As,  however,  the  Spirit  never  contradicts  himself,  he  never 
bears  witness  that  "the  children  of  the  devil"  are  the  children 
of  God ;  that  is,  that  the  unholy,  the  disobedient,  the  proud  or 
malicious,  are  the  objects  of  the  divine  favour.  Any  reference, 
therefore,  by  the  immoral,  to  the  witness  of  the  Spirit  in  their 
favour,  must  be  vain  and  delusive. 

Verse  6.  For  when  we  were  yet  without  strength.  The  con- 
nection of  this  verse,  as  indicated  by  jdp,  is  with  ver.  5.  We 
are  the  object  of  God's  love,  for  Christ  died  for  us.  The  gift 
of  Christ  to  die  on  our  behalf,  is  everywhere  in  Scripture 
represented  as  the  highest  possible  or  conceivable  proof  of  the 
love  of  God  to  sinners.  John  iii.  16,  1  John  iii.  16,  iv.  9,  10. 
The  objection  that  the  Church  doctrine  represents  the  death  of 
Christ  as  exciting  or  procuring  the  love  of  an  unloving  God,  is 
without  the  shadow  of  foundation.     The  Scriptures  represent 


212  ROMANS  V.  6. 

the  love  of  God  to  sinners  as  independent  of  the  work  of  Christ, 
and  anterior  to  it.  He  so  loved  us  as  to  give  his  only  begotten 
Son  to  reconcile  our  salvation  with  his  justice.  In  the  Greek 
of  this  passage,  Irr  yiip  Xntaxhc,  ovxcov  qiiiiiv  da&evwv,  the  ire, 
yet,  is  out  of  its  natural  place;  it  belongs  to  ovrojv  da&ei/ibu, 
(as  in  ver.  8,  eve  S.fj.o.pT(o?Mu,)  and  not  to  Xpcazoi;.  Such  tra- 
jections  of  the  particles  are  not  unusual  even  in  classical  Greek. 
See  Winer,  §  65,  4 :  '  Christ  died  for  us,  when  we  were  yet  weak.' 
This  slight  irregularity  has  given  rise  to  considerable  diversity 
of  readings,  even  in  the  older  manuscripts.  Some,  instead  of 
err  at  the  beginning  of  the  verse,  have  siye  or  etc  W,  and  place 
izt  after  aad-zvUiiv;  others  have  In  both  at  the  beginning  and  at 
the  end  of  the  clause.  The  great  majority  of  editors  and  com- 
mentators retain  the  common  reading^  and  refer  the  Izt  to 
dpT(ov,  &c.,  as  is  done  in  our  version.  We  being  yet  weak.  The 
weakness  here  intended  is  spiritual  weakness,  destitution  of 
strength  for  what  is  spiritually  good,  a  weakness  arising  from, 
and  consisting  in  sinfulness.  The  same  idea,  therefore,  is  ex- 
pressed in  ver.  8,  by  the  words  en  d/xapTcohov,  when  we  were 
yet  sinners.  What,  in  Isa.  liii.  4,  is  expressed  by  the  LXX.  in 
the  words  rac  SLfiapzcai;  q[j.a)v  <pepei,  he  bears  our  sins,  is,  in 
Matt.  viii.  17,  expressed  by  saying,  ra<r  da&evsca^  -^n&v  eXa^e, 
he  took  our  weaknesses.  In  due  time,  xard  xoupov,  are  not  to 
be  connected  with  the  preceding  participial,  'we  being  weak 
according  to  (or  considering)  the  time,'  secundum  rationem 
temporis,  as  Calvin  and  Luther,  after  Chrysostom  and  Theo- 
doret,  render  it,  but  with  the  following  verb,  drced^avs,  he  died 
xazd  xacpov.  This  may  mean,  at  the  appointed,  or  at  the  appro- 
priate time.  The  former  is  more  in  accordance  with  the  analogy 
of  Scripture.  Christ  came  at  the  time  appointed  by  the  Father. 
The  same  idea  is  expressed  in  Gal.  iv.  4,  by  "  the  fulness  of 
time;"  compare  Eph.  i.  10,  1  Tim.  ii.  6,  Titus  i.  3,  John  v.  4. 
Of  course  the  appointed  was  also  the  appropriate  time.  Thp 
question  only  concerns  the  form  in  which  the  idea  is  expressed. 
He  died,  brthp  das^ibv,  for  the  ungodly.  As  the  apostle  had  said, 
'when  we  were  weak,'  it  would  have  been  natural  for  him  to 
say,  '  Christ  died  for  us,'  rather  than  that  he  died  for  the 
ungodly,  had  it  not  been  his  design  to  exalt  the  gratuitous 
nature  of  God's  love.     Christ  died  for  us  the  ungodly;  and 


ROMANS  V.  6.  213 

therein,  as  the  apostle  goes  on  to  show,  is  the  mysteriousness 
of  the  divine  love  revealed.  That  God  should  love  the  good, 
the  righteous,  the  pure,  the  godly,  is  what  we  can  understand ; 
but  that  the  infinitely  Holy  should  love  the  unholy,  and  give 
his  Son  for  their  redemption,  is  the  wonder  of  all  wonders. 
"Herein  is  love,  not  that  we  loved  God,  but  that  he  loved  us, 
and  sent  his  Son  to  be  a  propitiation  for  our  sins."  1  John 
iv.  10.  As  the  love  of  a  mother  for  her  child,  with  which  God 
condescends  to  compare  his  love  towards  us,  is  not  founded  on 
the  attractive  qualities  of  that  child,  but  is  often  strongest  when 
its  object  is  the  least  worthy,  so  God  loves  us  when  sinners. 
The  whole  confidence  of  the  apostle  in  the  continuance  of  this 
love  (and  therefore  in  the  final  perseverance  of  the  saints)  is 
founded  on  its  being  thus  gratuitous.  If  he  loved  us  because 
we  loved  him,  he  would  love  us  only  so  long  as  we  love  him,  and 
on  that  condition ;  and  then  our  salvation  would  depend  on  the 
constancy  of  our  treacherous  hearts.  But  as  God  loved  us  as 
sinners,  as  Christ  died  for  us  as  ungodly,  our  salvation  depends, 
as  the  apostle  argues,  not  on  our  loveliness,  but  on  the  con- 
stancy of  the  love  of  God.  This  idea  pervades  this  whole  para- 
graph, and  is  brought  more  distinctly  into  view  in  the  following 
verses.  Christ  died  for  the  ungodly ;  that  is,  in  their  place, 
and  for  their  salvation.  The  idea  of  substitution  is  not  indeed 
necessarily  involved  in  the  force  of  the  preposition  hnkp^  which 
means  /or,  in  behalf  of  while  dvzi  means  in  the  place  of. 
None  the  less  certainly,  however,  is  the  doctrine  here  taught. 
To  die  for  a  man,  means  to  die  for  his  benefit.  And  there- 
fore, if  this  were  all  that  the  Scriptures  taught  concerning  the 
relation  between  Christ's  death  and  our  salvation,  it  would 
remain  undecided,  whether  he  died  for  us  as  an  example,  as  a 
martyr,  or  as  a  substitute.  But  when  it  is  said  that  he  died 
as  a  sacrifice,  that  he  gave  his  life  as  a  ransom,  that  he  was 
a  propitiation,  then  the  specific  method  in^  which  Christ's 
death  benefits  us  is  determined.  It  is  therefore  with  uKsp,  as 
with  our  preposition  for;  whether  or  not  it  expresses  the 
idea  of  substitution  depends  on  the  context,  and  the  nature 
of  the  subject.  In  such  passages  as  this,  and  2  Cor.  v.  15, 
20,  21,  Gal.  iii.  13,  Philemon  3,  urtip  involves  in  it  the  mean- 
in    of  dvri. 


214  ROMANS  V.  7. 

Verse  7.  For  scarcely  for  a  righteous  man  will  one  die,  yet 
peradventure  for  a  good  man  some  would  even  dare  to  die.  The 
greatness  and  freeness  of  the  love  of  God  is  illusti-ated  in  this 
and  the  following  verse,  by  making  still  more  prominent  the 
unworthiness  of  its  objects :  '  It  is  hardly  to  be  expected  that 
any  one  would  die,  in  the  place  of  a  merely  righteous  man, 
though  for  the  good  man,  this  self-denial  might  possibly  be 
exercised.  But  we,  so  far  from  being  good,  were  not  even 
righteous;  we  were  sinners,  ungodly,  and  enemies.'  The  dif- 
ference between  the  words  righteous  and  good,  as  here  used,  is 
that  which,  in  common  usage,  is  made  between  just  and  kind. 
The  former  is  applied  to  a  man  who  does  all  that  the  law  or 
justice  can  demand  of  him,  the  latter  to  him  who  is  governed 
by  love.  The  just  man  commands  respect ;  the  good  man  calls 
forth  affection.  Respect  being  a  cold  and  feeble  principle,  com- 
pared to  love,  the  sacrifices  to  which  it  leads  are  comparatively 
slight.  This  distinction  between  dixwo^  and  aya&6^  is  illustrated 
by  that  which  Cicero,  De  Officiis,  Lib.  III.  15,  makes  between 
Justus  and  bonus:  "Si  vir  bonus  is  est  qui  prodest  quibus 
potest,  nocet  tiemini,  recte  justum  virum,  bonum  non  facile 
reperiemus."  The  interpretation  given  above  is  the  one  gene- 
rally adopted;  it  suits  the  context,  the  signification  of  the 
words,  and  the  structure  of  the  passage.  The  design  of  the 
apostle  is  to  represent  the  death  of  Christ  as  an  unexampled 
manifestation  of  love.  Among  men,  it  was  never  heard  of  that 
one  died  for  a  man  simply  just;  the  most  that  human  nature 
could  be  expected  to  accomplish  is,  that  one  should  die  for  his 
benefactor,  or  for  the  good  man — one  so  good  as  to  be  charac- 
terized and  known  as  the  good.  There  is  evidently  a  climax  in 
the  passage,  as  indicated  by  the  opposition  between  (//o^^c  and 
rd^a)  scarcely  and  possibly.  The  passage,  however,  has  been 
differently  interpreted.  Luther  takes  both  dixacou  and  zou 
axa&oi)  as  neuters :  "  Scarcely  for  the  right  will  any  one  die, 
possibly  for  something  good  some  one  might  dare  to  die." 
Calvin  makes  no  distinction  between  the  words :  "  Rarissimum 
sane  inter  homines  exemplum  exstat,  ut  pro  justo  quis  mori 
sustineat  quanquam  illud  nonnunquam  accidere  possit."  Meyer 
takes  8ixaiou,  as  it  is  without  the  article,  as  masculine,  but 
Tou   dyad^ou   as   neuter,    and  renders   the   latter  clause  of  the 


ROMANS  V.  8,  9.  215 

verse  interrogatively :  "  Hardly  for  a  righteous  man  will  one 
die,  for  who  can  easily  bring  himself  to  die  for  what  is  good 
{to  dja&ov,  the  good)?"  The  common  interpretation  is  per- 
fectly satisfactory,  and  to  these,  other  objections  more  or  less 
decisive  may  be  adduced.  Instead  of  dixacou,  the  Syriac  reads 
ddcxou,  'Scarcely  for  an  unrighteous  man  will  one  die.'  But 
this  is  not  only  unauthorized,  but  the  sense  is  not  so  appro- 
priate. 

-  Verse  8.  But  God  commendeth  his  love  towards  us,  in  that, 
while  we  were  yet  sinners,  Ohrist  died  for  us.  'Commendeth,' 
ffuvlffzrjai,  proves,  or  renders  conspicuous;  see  iii.  5.  What 
renders  the  love  of  God  So  peculiarly  conspicuous,  is  his  send- 
ing his  Son  to  die,  not  for  the  good,  nor  even  for  the  righteous, 
but  for  sinners,  for  those  who  were  deserving  of  wrath  instead 
of  love.  The  word  sinners  expresses  the  idea  of  moral  turpi- 
tude, and  consequent  exposure  to  the  divine  displeasure.  It 
was  for,  or  in  the  place  of  those  who  were  at  once  corrupt,  and  _^, 
the  enemies  of  God,  that  Christ  died.  "^ 

Verse  9.  Much  more  then,  being  now  justified  by  his  blood, 
we  shall  be  saved  from  wrath  through  him.  This  and  the  fol- 
lowing verse  draw  the  obvious  inference,  from  the  freeness  and 
greatness  of  the  love  of  God,  as  just  exhibited,  that  believers 
shall  be  ultimately  saved.  It  is  an  argument  a  fortiori.  If  the 
greater  benefit  has  been  bestowed,  the  less  will  not  be  withheld. 
If  Christ  has  died  for  his  enemies,  he  will  surely  save  his 
friends.  Being  justified.  To  be  justified  is  more  than  to  be 
pardoned;  it  includes  the  idea  of  reconciliation  or  restoration 
to  the  favour  of  God,  on  the  ground  of  a  satisfaction  to  justice, 
and  the  participation  of  the  consequent  blessings.  This  idea  is 
prominently  presented  in  the  following  verse.  '  We  are  justified 
by  his  blood.'  This  expression,  as  remarked  above  (chap.  iv.  3,) 
exhibits  the  true  ground  of  our  acceptance  with  God.  It  is  not 
our  works,  nor  our  faith,  nor  our  new  obedience,  nor  the  work 
of  Christ  in  us,  but  what  he  has  done  for  us;  chap.  iii.  25, 
Eph.  ii.  13,  Heb.  ix.  12.  Having  by  the  death  of  Christ  been 
brought  into  the  relation  of  peace  with  God,  being  now  regarded 
for  his  sake  as  righteous,  we  shall  be  saved  from  wrath  through 
him.  He  will  not  leave  his  work  unfinished ;  whom  he  justifies, 
them  he  also  glorifies.     The  word  wrath,  of  course,  means  the 


216  ROMANS  V.  10. 

effects  of  wrath  or  punishment,  those  sufferings  with  which  the 
divine  displeasure  visits  sin;  Matt.  iii.  7,  1  Thess.  i.  10,  Rom. 
i.  18.  Not  only  is  our  justification  to  be  ascribed  to  Christ,  but 
our  salvation  is  through  him.  Salvation,  in  a  general  sense, 
includes  justification ;  but  when  distinguished  from  it,  as  in  this 
case,  it  means  the  consummation  of  that  work  of  which  justifi- 
cation is  the  commencement.  It  is  a  preservation  from  all  the 
causes  of  destruction ;  a  deliverance  from  the  evils  which  sur- 
round us  here,  or  threaten  us  hereafter ;  and  an  introduction 
into  the  blessedness  of  heaven.  Christ  thus  saves  us  by  his 
providence  and  Spirit,  and  by  his  constant  intercession ;  chap, 
viii.  34,  Heb.  iv.  14,  15,  vii.  25,  Jude  v.  24,  1  John  ii.  1. 
Olshausen  here  also  introduces  his  idea  of  subjective  justifica- 
tion, and  says  that  the  meaning  of  this  passage  is,  "If  God 
regenerates  a  man,  we  may  hope  that  he  will  uphold  and  per- 
fect him,  and  reduce  his  liability  to  apostasy  to  a  minimum." 
According  to  this,  to  justify  is  to  regenerate,  and  to  save  from 
wrath  is  to  reduce  our  liability  to  apostasy  to  a  minimum. 

Verse  10.  For  if,  when  we  were  yet  enemies^  we  were  recon- 
ciled to  Grod  hy  the  death  of  his  Son,  &c.  This  verse  contains 
nearly  the  same  idea  as  ver.  9,  presented  in  a  different  form. 
The  word  enemies  is  applied  to  men  not  only  as  descriptive  of 
their  moral  character,  but  also  of  the  relation  in  which  they 
stand  to  God  as  the  objects  of  his  displeasure.  There  is  not 
only  a  wicked  opposition  of  the  sinner  to  God,  but  a  holy 
opposition  of  God  to  the  sinner.  The  preceding  verse  presents 
the  former  of  these  ideas,  and  this  verse  the  latter  most  promi- 
nently. There  it  is  said,  'though  sinners,  we  are  justified;' 
and  here,  'though  enemies,  we  are  reconciled.'  The  word 
i-j^&()oi  has  the  same  passive  sense  in  xi.  28.  And  this  is  the 
principal  difference  between  the  two  verses.  To  be  reconciled 
to  Grod,  in  such  connections,  does  not  mean  to  have  our  enmity 
to  God  removed,  but  his  enmity  to  us  taken  out  of  the  way,  to 
have  him  rendered  propitious,  or  his  righteous  justice  satisfied. 
This  is  evident,  1.  Because  the  reconciliation  is  r.  scribed  to  the 
death  of  Christ,  or  his  blood,  ver.  9.  But,  according  to  the 
constant  representations  of  Scripture,  the  death  of  Christ  is  a 
sacrifice  to  satisfy  divine  justice,  or  to  propitiate  the  favour  of 
God,  and  not  immediately  a  means  of  sanctification.    The  former 


ROMANS  V.  10.  217 

is  its  direct  object,  the  latter  an  incidental  result.  This  is  the 
very  idea  of  a  sacrifice.  The  most  liberal  commentators,  that 
is,  those  least  bound  by  any  theological  system,  admit  this  to 
be  the  doctrine  of  Scripture,  and  of  this  particular  passage. 
Thus  Meyer:  "Christi  Tod  tilgte  nicht  die  Feindschaft  der 
Menschen  gegen  Gott;"  that  is,  "The  death  of  Christ  does  not 
remove  the  enmity  of  men  towards  God,  but  as  that  which 
secures  the  favour  of  God,  it  removes  his  enmity  towards  men, 
whence  the  removal  of  our  enmity  towards  him  follows  as  a  con- 
sequence." So  also  Ruckert:  "The  reconciled  here  can  only 
be  God,  whose  wrath  towards  sinners  is  appeased  by  the  death 
of  his  Son.  On  man's  part  nothing  has  happened ;  no  internal 
change,  no  step  towards  God;  all  this  follows  as  the  conse- 
quence of  the  reconciliation  here  spoken  of."  De  Wette  also 
says,  that  ^'' xavaXXay/j  must  mean  the  removal  of  the  wrath  of 
God,  and  consequently  the  reconciliation  is  of  God  to  man, 
which  not  only  here,  but  in  iii.  25,  2  Cor.  v.  18,  19,  Col.  i.  21, 
Eph.  ii.  16,  is  referred  to  the  atoning  death  of  Christ."  2.  The 
object  of  the  verse  is  to  present  us  as  enemies,  or  the  objects 
of  God's  displeasure.  '  If  while  we  were  the  objects  of  the 
divine  displeasure,'  says  the  apostle,  'that  displeasure  has  been 
removed,  or  God  propitiated  by  the  death  of  his  Son,  how 
much  more  shall  we  be  saved,'  »&c.  That  is,  if  God  has  been 
reconciled  to  us,  he  will  save  us.  3.  This  is  the  proper  mean- 
ing of  the  word,  2  Cor.  v.  18,  19.  See  also  Matt.  v.  24,  "  First 
go  and  be  reconciled  to  thy  brother,"  i.  e.  go  and  appease  his 
anger,  or  remove  the  ground  of  his  displeasure;  compare  Heb. 
ii.  17,  "  He  is  a  priest  to  make  reconciliation  (e^'c  ro  lXdaxs.a&at) 
for  the  sins  of  the  people."  It  is  the  appropriate  business  of 
a  priest  to  propitiate  God,  and  not  to  reform  men.  See  also 
1  Sam.  xxix.  4:  "Wherewith  should  he  reconcile  himself  [ocaX- 
layr^atrac)  to  his  master  ?  should  it  not  be  with  the  heads  of  these 
men?"  Eph.  ii.  16,  "That  he  might  reconcile  {anoxaraXXd^rj) 
both  unto  God  by  the  cross,"  not  remove  their  enmity  to  God, 
but  secure  for  them  his  favour  and  access  to  the  Father,  ver.  18. 
The  verbs  xaTaXXdaato,  dtaXXdaaa),  and  dTtoxaTaXXdaao),  are  used 
interchangeably.  The  main  idea,  of  course,  as  expressed  by 
dXXdaau),  to  change,  is    slightly  modified  by  the  force  of  the 


218  ROMANS  V.  10. 

several  prepositions  with  which  it  is  combined — to  change  xard 
in  relation  to,  ocd  between,  6.7:6  from.  The  three  verbs,  however, 
are  all  used  to  express  the  idea  of  reconciliation,  i.  e.  changing 
the  relation  of  parties  at  enmity,  so  that  they  are  at  peace. 
Whether  this  reconciliation  is  effected  by  the  propitiation  of  the 
justly  offended  party,  or  by  a  change  of  feeling  in  the  offender, 
or  both,  depends  on  the  connection.  4.  The  context  obviously 
requires  this  sense  here.  "  Being  reconciled  by  the  death  of 
his  Son,"  evidently  corresponds  to  the  phrase,  "  Being  justified 
by  his  blood."  The  latter  cannot  mean  that  our  feelings  towards 
God  are  changed,  but  is  admitted  to  express  the  idea  that  we 
are  forgiven  and  restored  to  the  divine  favour.  Such  therefore 
must  be  the  meaning  of  the  former.  Besides,  it  is  the  object 
of  the  apostle  to  illustrate  the  greatness  and  freeness  of  the  love 
of  God,  from  the  unworthiness  of  its  objects.  While  sinners, 
we  are  justified;  while  enemies,  we  are  reconciled.  To  make 
the  passage  mean,  that  when  enemies  we  laid  aside  our  enmity, 
and  became  the  friends  of  God,  would  be  to  make  it  contradict 
the  very  assertion  and  design  of  the  apostle. 

We  shall  he  saved  hy  his  life.  This  rather  unusual  mode  of 
expression  was  doubtless  adopted  for  the  sake  of  its  correspond- 
ence to  the  words,  hy  his  death,  in  the  preceding  clause,  and  is 
a  striking  example  of  Paul's  fondness  for  such  antithetical  con- 
structions ;  see  chap.  iv.  25,  Gal.  iii.  3,  2  Cor.  iii.  6.  The  mean- 
ing is  obvious :  '  If  while  we  were  enemies,  we  were  restored  to 
the  favour  of  God  by  the  death  of  his  Son,  the  fact  that  he 
lives  will  certainly  secure  our  final  salvation.'  1.  His  life  is  a 
pledge  and  security  for  the  life  of  all  his  people;  see  John 
xiv.  19,  "Because  I  live,  ye  shall  live  also;"  Rom.  viii.  11, 
1  Cor.  XV.  23.  2.  He  is  able  to  save  to  the  uttermost,  "because 
he  ever  lives  to  make  intercession  for  us,"  Heb.  vii.  25,  &c. 
3.  At  his  resurrection,  all  power  in  heaven  and  earth  was  com- 
mitted to  his  hands,  Matt,  xxviii.  18 ;  and  this  power  he  exer- 
cises for  the  salvation  of  his  people ;  Eph.  i.  22,  '  He  is  head 
over  all  things,  for  the  benefit  of  his  Church;'  Rev.  i.  18,  Heb. 
ii.  10,  1  Cor.  XV.  25,  &c.;  see  also  the  passages  cited  on  the 
last  clause  of  ver.  9.  There  is,  therefore,  most  abundant 
ground  for  confidence  for  the  final  blessedness  of  believers,  not 


ROMANS  V.  11.  219 

only  in  the  amazing  love  of  God,  by  which,  though  sinners  and 
enemies,  theyjbave_been_justified  and  reconciled  by  the  death 
of  his  Son,  but  also  in  the  consideration  thatjhis  same  Saviour 
that  died  for  them  still  lives,  and  ever  lives  to  sanctify,  protect, 
and  save  them. 

Verse  11.  Not  only  so,  but  we  rejoice  in  God,  through  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ;  oh  fiovov  de,  dXka  xac  xau^to/jtevoc  kv  rep  dsa).. 
There  are  three  ways  of  explaining  the  participle  xauj^cousvoi; 
the  one  is  to  make  it  antithetical  to  xazaXXaYsvzet;,  'not  only 
reconciled,  but  exulting  in  God,  shall  we  be  saved.'  But  this 
is  not  only  an  unnatural  form  of  expression,  but  in  ver.  9, 
xaxaXXafivrtQ  is  not  a  qualification  of  aco&v^aofit&a.  The  mean- 
ing is  not,  'We  shall  be  saved  reconciled,'  but,  'Since  we  are 
reconciled  we  shall  be  saved.'  Another  interpretation  supplies 
the  verb  from  the  preceding  clause,  'Not  only  shall  we  be 
saved,  but  saved  rejoicing  in  God.'  The  best  sense  is  obtained 
by  supplying  itr/zev  after  the  participle,  as  is  assumed  in  the 
English  version,  and  advocated  by  the  majority  of  commenta- 
tors :  '  We  shall  not  only  be  ultimately  saved,  but  we  now  glory 
in  God.'  The  benefits  of  redemption  are  not  all  future.  It  is 
not  only  deliverance  from  future  wrath,  but  the  joy  and  glory 
of  the  present  favour  and  love  of  God,  that  we  owe  to  Jesus 
Christ.  Thus  the  Vulgate,  which  renders  xaoj^io/jievot  as  a  verb, 
[sed  et  gloriamur,)  as  does  Luther,  "Wir  riihmen  uns  auch 
Gottes."  We  glory  in  God  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 
That  is,  it  is  to  him  that  we  are  indebted  for  this  joy  in  God 
as  our  God  and  portion.  Through  whom  we  have  now  rec'eimd 
atonement.  This  is  the  reason  why  we  owe  our  present  glory- 
ing in  God  to  Christ ;  it  is  because  he  has  secured  our  recon- 
ciliation. The  word  rendered  by  our  translators,  atonement,  is 
xavaXXo^,  the  derivative  of  xazaXXdaao),  properly  rendered  in 
the  context,  as  elsewhere,  to  reconcile.  The  proper  rendering, 
therefore,  of  the  noun  would  be  reconciliation:  '  Through  whom 
we  have  received  reconciliation,  that  is,  have  been  reconciled.' 
This  verse  therefore  brings  us  back  to  ver.  2.  There  it  is  said, 
'Having  peace  with  God,  we  rejoice  in  hope  of  his  glory;'  and 
here,  'Being  reconciled,  we  glory  or  rejoice  in  God.'  Salvation/ 
is  begun  on  earth. 


220  ROMANS  V.  1—11. 

DOCTRINE. 

1.  Peace  with  God  is  the  result  of  that  system  of  religion 
which  alone,  by  providing  at  once  for  the  satisfaction  of  divine 
justice  and  the  sanctification  of  the  human  heart,  is  suited  to 
the  character  of  God  and  the  nature  of  man.  All  history 
shows  that  no  system  other  than  the  gospel  has  ever  produced 
this  peace,  ver.  1. 

2.  All  the  peculiar  blessings  of  redemption  are  inseparably 
connected  with  and  grow  out  of  each  other.  Those  who  are  jus- 
tified have  peace  with  God,  access  to  his  presence,  joy  under  the 
most  adverse  circumstances,  assurance  of  God's  love,  and  cer- 
tainty of  final  salvation;  see  the  whole  section,  and  compare 
chap.  viii.  30. 

3.  The  Holy  Ghost  has  intimate  access  to  the  human  soul, 
controlling  its  exercises,  exciting  its  emotions,  and  leading  it 
into  the  knowledge  of  the  truth,  ver.  5. 

4.  The  assurance  of  hope  is  founded  on  the  consciousness  of 
pious  afi"ections,  and  the  witness  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  and  is  a 
grace  to  which  believers  may  and  ought  to  attain,  vs.  4,  5. 

y  5.  The  perseverance  of  the  saints  is  to  be  attributed  not  to 
■  the  strength  of  their  love  to  God,  nor  to  anything  else  in  them- 
selves, but  solely  to  the  free  and  infinite  love  of  God  in  Christ 
Jesus.  The  praise  is  therefore  no  more  due  to  them,  than  com- 
mendation to  a  helpless  infant  for  its  mother's  sleepless  care. 
"  Can  a  woman  forget  her  sucking  child,"  &c.,  vs.  6 — 10. 
"  6..  Redemption  is  not  by  truth  or  moral  influence,  but  by 
blood,  vs.  9, 10. 
y  7.  The  primary  object  of  the  death  of  Christ  was  to  render 
God  propitious,  to  satisfy  his  justice,  and  not  to  influence  human 
conduct,  or  display  the  divine  character,  for  the  sake  -  of  the 
moral  effect  of  that  exhibition.  Among  its  infinitely  diversified 
results,  all  of  which  were  designed,  some  of  the  most  important, 
no  doubt,  are  the  sanctification  of  men,  the  display  of  the  divine 
perfections,  the  prevention  of  sin,  the  happiness  of  the  universe, 
&c.  But  the  object  of  a  sacrifice,  as  such,  is  to  propitiate,  vs.  9, 
10,  Heb.  ii.  17. 

<.  8.  All  we  have  or  hope  for,  we  owe  to  Jesus  Christ — peace, 
communion  with  God,  joy,  hope,  eternal  life;  see  the  whole 
section,  and  the  whole  Bible. 


ROMANS  V.  12—21.  221 

REMARKS. 

1.  If  we  are  the  genuine  children  of  God,  we  have  peace  of 
conscience,  a  sense  of  God's  favour,  and  freedom  of  access  to 
his  throne.  We  endure  afflictions  with  patience.  Instead  of 
making  us  distrustful  of  our  heavenly  Father,  they  afford  us 
new  proofs  of  his  love,  and  strengthen  our  hope  of  his  mercy. 
And  we  shall  have  also,  more  or  less  of  the  assurance  of  God's 
love,  by  the  indwelling  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  vs.  1 — 5. 

2.  None  of  these  fruits  of  r^onciliation  with  God  can  be  ob- 
tained until  the  spirit  of  self-righteousness  and  self-dependence 
is  removed.  They  are  secured  through  faith,  and  by  Christ 
Jesus,  and  not  by  our  own  works  or  merit,  ver.  1,  &c. 

3.  The  hope  of  the  hypocrite  is  like  a  spider's  web ;  the 
hope  of  the  believer  is  an  anchor  to  his  soul,  sure  and  stead- 
fast, ver.  5. 

y  4.  Assurance  of  the  love  of  God  never  produces  self-com- 

^  placency  or  pride ;  but  always  humility,  self-abasement,  wonder, 

gratitude,  and  praise.     The  believer  sees  that  the  mysterious 

fountain  of  this  love  is  in  the  divine  mind ;  it  is  not  in  himself, 

who  is  ungodly  and  a  sinner,  vs.  8 — 10. 

"  5.  As  the  love  of  God  in  the  gift  of  his  Son,  and  the  love  of 
Christ  in  dying  for  us,  are  the  peculiar  characteristics  of  the 
gospel,  no  one  can  be  a  true  Christian  on  whom  these  truths  do 
not  exert  a  governing  influence,  vs.  9, 10 ;  compare  2  Cor.  v.  14. 

-?  6.  True  religion  is  joyful,  vs.  2,  11. 


ROMANS  V.  12—21. 

ANALYSIS. 

I.  Sco-pe  of  the  passage.  The  design  of  this  section  is  the 
illustration  of  the  doctrine  of  the  justification  of  sinners  on  the 
ground  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  by  a  reference  to  the 
condemnation  of  men  for  the  sin  of  Adam.  That  such  is  its 
design  is  evident,  1.  From  the  context.  Paul  has  been  engaged 
from  the  beginning  of  the  epistle  in  inculcating  one  main  idea, 
VIZ.  that  the  ground  of  the  sinner's  acceptance  with  God  is  not 
in  himself,  but  the  merit  of  Christ.     And  in  the  preceding 


222  ROMANS  V.  12—21. 

verses  he  had  said,  "we  are  justified  by  his  blood,"  ver.  9;  by 
his  death  we  are  restored  to  the  divine  favour,  ver.  10;  and 
through  him,  i.  e.  by  one  man,  we  have  received  reconciliation, 
that  is,  are  pardoned  and  justified,  ver.  11.  As  this  idea  of 
men's  being  regarded  and  treated,  not  according  to  their  own 
merit,  but  the  merit  of  another,  is  contrary  to  the  common  mode 
of  thinking  among  men,  and  especially  contrary  to  their  self- 
righteous  efibrts  to  obtain  the  divine  favour,  the  apostle  illus- 
trates and  enforces  it  by  an  appq^l  to  the  great  analogous  fact 
in  the  history  of  the  world.  2.  From  an  inspection  of  vs.  12, 
18,  19,  which  contain  the  whole  point  and  substance  of  the 
comparison.  Verses  13 — 17  are  virtually  a  parenthesis  ;  and 
vs.  20,  21,  contain  two  remarks,  merely  incidental  to  the  dis- 
cussion. Verses  12,  18,  19,  must  therefore  contain  the  main 
idea  of  the  passage.  In  the  12th,  only  one  side  of  the  com- 
parison is  stated ;  but  in  vs.  18,  19,  it  is  resumed  and  carried 
out:  'As  by  the  offence  of  one  all  are  condemned,  so  by  the 
righteousness  of  one  all  are  justified.'  This,  almost  in  the  words 
of  the  apostle,  is  the  simple  meaning  of  vs.  18,  19,  and  makes 
the  point  of  the  comparison  and  scope  of  the  passage  perfectly 
clear.  3.  The  design  of  the  passage  must  be  that  on  which  all 
its  parts  bear,  the  point  towards  which  they  all  converge.  The 
course  of  the  argument,  as  will  appear  in  the  sequel,  bears  so 
uniformly  and  lucidly  on  the  point  just  stated,  that  the  attempt 
to  make  it  bear  on  any  other  involves  the  whole  passage  in 
confusion.  All  that  the  apostle  says  tends  to  the  illustration 
of  his  declaration,  'As  we  are  condemned  on  account  of  what 
Adam  did,  we  are  justified  on  account  of  what  Christ  did.'  The 
illustration  of  this  point,  therefore,  must  be  the  design  and 
scope  of  the  whole. 

It  is  frequently  and  confidently  said  that  the  design  of  the 
passage  is  to  exalt  our  views  of  the  blessings  procured  by 
Christ,  by  showing  that  they  are  greater  than  the  evils  occa- 
sioned by  the  fall.  But  this  is  not  only  improbable,  but  impos- 
sible. 1.  Because  the  superabounding  of  the  grace  of  the  gospel 
is  not  expressly  stated  until  ver.  20.  That  is,  not  until  the 
whole  discussion  is  ended;  and  it  is  introduced  there  merely 
incidentally,  as  involved  in  the  apostle's  answer  to  an  objection 
to  his  argument,  implied  in  the  question,  '  For  what  purpose  did 


ROMANS  V.  12—21.  223 

the  law  enter  ?'  Is  it  possible  that  the  main  design  of  a  passage 
should  be  disclosed  only  in  the  reply  to  an  incidental  objection? 
The  pith  and  point  of  the  discussion  would  be  just  what  they 
are  now,  had  no  such  objection  been  suggested  or  answered; 
yet,  if  this  view  of  the  subject  is  correct,  had  the  objection  not 
been  presented,  the  main  design  of  the  passage  would  have  been 
unexpressed  and  undiscoverable.  2.  The  idea  of  the  superiority 
of  the  blessings  procured  by  Christ  to  the  evils  occasioned  by 
Adam,  although  first  expressly  stated  in  ver.  20,  is  alluded  to 
and  implied  in  vs.  16,  17.  But  these  verses,  it  is  admitted, 
belong  to  a  parenthesis.  It  is  conceded  on  all  hands,  that 
vs.  13,  14,  are  designed  to  confirm  the  statement  of  ver.  12,  and 
that  vs.  15 — 17,  are  subordinate  to  the  last  clause  of  ver.  14, 
and  contain  an  illustration  of  its  meaning.  It  is  therefore  not 
only  admitted,  but  frequently  and  freely  asserted,  that  vs.  12, 
18,  19,  contain  the  point  and  substance  of  the  whole  passage, 
vs.  13 — 17  being  a  parenthesis.  Yet,  in  vs.  12,  18,  19,  the 
superabounding  of  the  grace  of  Christ  is  not  even  hinted.  Can 
the  main  design  of  a  passage  be  contained  in  a  parenthesis,  and 
not  in  the  passage  itself?  The  very  nature  of  a  parenthesis  is, 
that  it  contains  something  which  may  be  left  out  of  a  passage, 
and  leave  the  sense  entire.  But  can  the  main  design  and  scope 
of  an  author  be  left  out,  and  his  meaning  be  left  complete  ?  If 
not,  it  is  impossible  that  an  idea  contained  only  in  a  parenthesis 
should  be  the  main  design  of  the  passage.  The  idea  is  in  itself 
true  and  important,  but  the  mistake  consists  in  exalting  a  corol- 
lary into  the  scope  and  object  of  the  whole  discussion.  The 
confusion  and  mistake  in  the  exposition  of  a  passage,  conse- 
quent on  an  entire  misapprehension  of  its  design,  may  be 
readily  imagined. 

II.  The  connection.  The  design  of  the  passage  being  the 
illustration  of  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  the  righteousness 
of  Christ,  previously  established,  the  connection  is  natural  and 
obvious :  '  Wherefore,  as  by  one  man  we  have  been  brought 
under  condemnation,  so  by  one  man  we  are  brought  into  a  state 
of  justification  and  life.'  The  wherefore  {did  xouzo)  is  conse- 
quently to  be  taken  as  illative,  or  marking  an  inference  from 
the  whole  of  the  previous  part  of  the  epistle,  and  especially 
from  the  preceding  verses.     '  Wherefore  we  are  justified  by  the 


224  ROMANS  V.  12—21. 

righteousness  of  one  man,  even  as  we  were  brought  into  con- 
demnation by  the  sin  of  one  man.'  It  would  seem  that  only  a 
misapprehension  of  the  design  of  the  passage,  or  an  unwilling- 
ness to  admit  it,  could  have  led  to  the  numerous  forced  and 
unauthorized  explanations  of  these  words.  Some  render  them 
moreover;  others,  in  respect  to  this,  &c. 

III.  The  course  of  the  argument.  As  the  point  to  be  illus- 
trated is  the  justification  of  sinners  on  the  ground  of  the  right- 
eousness of  Christ,  and  the  source  of  illustration  is  the  fall  of 
all  men  in  Adam,  the  passage  begins  with  a  statement  of  this 
latter  truth:  'As  on  account  of  one  man,  death  has  passed  on 
all  men;  so  on  account  of  one,'  &c.,  ver.  12.  Before  carrying 
out  the  comparison,  however,  the  apostle  stops  to  establish  his 
position,  that  all  men  are  condemned  on  account  of  the  sin  of 
Adam.  His  proof  is  this :  The  infliction  of  a  penalty  implies 
^  the  transgression  of  a  law,  since  sin  is  not  imputed  where  there 
is  no  law,  ver.  13.  All  mankind  are  subject  to  death  or  penal 
evils ;  therefore  all  men  are  regarded  as  transgressors  of  a  law, 
ver.  13.  This  law  or  covenant,  which  brings  death  on  all  men, 
is  not  the  law  of  Moses,  because  multitudes  died  before  that  was 
given,  ver.  14.  Nor  is  it  the  law  of  nature  written  upon  the 
heart,  since  multitudes  die  who  have  never  violated  even  that 
law,  ver.  14.  Therefore,  as  neither  of  these  laws  is  sufficiently 
extensive  to  embrace  all  the  subjects  of  the  penalty,  we  must 
conclude  that  men  are  subject  to  death  on  account  of  Adam ; 
that  is,  it  is  for  the  offence  of  one  that  many  die,  vs.  13,  14. 
Adam  is,  therefore,  a  type  of  Christ.  As  to  this  important 
point,  there  is  a  striking  analogy  between  the  fall  and  redemp- 
tion. We  are  condemned  in  Adam,  and  we  are  justified  in 
Christ.  But  the  cases  are  not  completely  parallel.  In  the  first 
place,  the  former  dispensation  is  much  more  mysterious  than 
the  latter ;  for  if  by  the  ofience  of  one  many  die,  much  more 
by  the  righteousness  of  one  shall  many  live,  ver.  15.  In  the 
second  place,  the  benefits  of  the  one  dispensation  far  exceed  the 
evils  of  the  other.  For  the  condemnation  was  for  one  oifence ; 
the  justification  is  from  many.  Christ  saves  us  from  much  more 
than  the  guilt  of  Adam's  sin,  ver.  16.  In  the  third  place, 
Christ  not  only  saves  us  from  death,  that  is,  not  only  frees  us 
from  the  evils  consequent  on  our  own  and  Adam's  sin,  but 


ROMANS  V.  12.  225 

introduces  us  into  a  state  of  positive  and  eternal  blessedness, 
ver.  17.  Or  this  verse  may  be  considered  as  an  amplification 
of  the  sentiment  of  ver.  15. 

Having  thus  limited  and  illustrated  the  analogy  between 
Adam  and  Christ,  the  apostle  resumes  and  carries  the  compari- 
son fully  out :  ^  Therefore,  as  on  account  of  one  man  all  men 
are  condemned;  so  on  account  of  one,  all  are  justified,'  ver.  18. 
Tor,  as  through  the  disobedience  of  one,  many  are  regarded 
and  treated  as  sinners;  so  through  the  righteousness  of  one 
many  are  regarded  and  treated  as  righteous,'  ver.  19.  This 
then  is  the  sense  of  the  passage — men  are  condemned  for  the 
sin  of  one  man,  and  justified  for  the  righteousness  of  another. 
If  men  are  thus  justified  by  the  obedience  of  Christ,  for  what 
purpose  is  the  law?  'It  entered  that  sin  might  abound,'  i.  e.  that 
men  might  see  how  much  it  abounded ;  since  by  the  law  is  the 
knowledge  of  sin.  The  law  has  its  use,  although  men  are  not 
justified  by  their  own  obedience  to  it,  ver.  20.  As  the  law  dis- 
closes, and  even  aggravates  the  dreadful  triumphs  of  sin  reign- 
ing, in  union  with  death,  over  the  human  family,  the  gospel 
displays  the  far  more  efi'ectual  and  extensive  triumphs  of  grace 
through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord,  ver.  21. 

According  to  this  view  of  the  passage  it  consists  of  five  parts. 
The  first,  contained  in  ver.  12,  presents  the  first  member  of  the 
comparison  between  Christ  and  Adam.  The  second  contains 
the  proof  of  the  position  assumed  in  ver.  12,  and  embraces 
vs.  13,  14,  which  are  therefore  subordinate  to  ver.  12.  Adam, 
therefore,  is  a  type  of  Christ.  The  third,  embracing  vs.  15 — 17, 
is  a  commentary  on  this  declaration,  by  which  it  is  at  once 
illustrated  and  limited.  The  fourth,  in  vs.  18,  19,  resumes  and 
carries  out  the  comparison  commenced  in  ver.  12.  The  fifth 
forms  the  conclusion  of  the  chapter,  and  contains  a  statement 
of  the  design  and  effect  of  the  law,  and  of  the  results  of  the 
gospel,  suggested  by  the  preceding  comparison,  vs.  20,  21. 

COMMENTARY. 

Verse  12.    Wherefore,  as  hy  one  man  sin  entered  into  the 

world,  and  death  hy  sin,  &c.    The  force  of  dta  touto,  wherefore, 

has  already  been  pointed  out,  when  speaking  of  the  connection 

of  this  passage  with  the  preceding :  '  It  follows,  from  what  haa 

15 


226  ROMANS  V.  12. 

been  said  of  the  method  of  justification,  that  as  by  one  man  all 
became  sinners,  so  by  one  are  all  constituted  righteous.'  This 
passage,  therefore,  is  the  summation  of  all  that  has  gone  before. 
As  [axTTisp,)  obviously  indicates  a  comparison  or  parallel.  There 
is  however  no  corresponding  clause  beginning  with  so,  to  com- 
plete the  sentence.  Examples  of  similar  incomplete  compari- 
sons may  be  found  in  Matt.  xxv.  14,  with  wanep,  and  in  1  Tim. 
i.  3,  with  xd&coi;.  It  is  however  so  obvious  that  the  illustration 
begun  in  this  verse  is  resumed,  and  fully  stated  in  vs.  18,  19, 
that  the  vast  majority  of  commentators  agree  that  we  must  seek 
in  those  verses  the  clause  which  answers  to  this  verse.  The 
other  explanations  are  unnecessary  or  unsatisfactory.  1.  Some 
say  that  this  verse  is  complete  in  itself,  ^As  by  one  man  sin 
entered  into  the  world,  and  death  by  sin,  so  also  death  passed 
on  all  men,  because  all  sinned.'  The  two  insuperable  objections 
to  this  explanation  are,  first,  that  it  does  violence  to  the  words. 
It  makes  the  apostle  say  what  he  does  not  say.  It  makes  xac 
ouTcoi;,  and  so,  to  mean  the  same  with  ouvco  xac,  so  also,  which  is 
impossible.  And  secondly,  it  is  inconsistent  with  the  whole 
design  and  argument  of  the  passage.  Instead  of  having  a  com- 
parison between  Christ  and  Adam,  the  comparison  would  be 
between  Adam  and  other  men :  ^As  he  sinned  and  died,  so  they 
sinned  and  died.'  2.  Others  say,  that  we  find  in  the  last  clause 
of  ver.  14,  in  substance,  although  not  in  form,  the  apodosis  of 
this  clause:  ^As  by  one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world,  so 
Adam  is  the  type  of  Christ.'  But  this  is  obviously  inconsistent 
with  the  wording  and  connection  of  the  clause  in  ver.  18. 
3.  De  Wette  proposes,  after  Cocceius,  Eisner,  and  a  few  others, 
to  make  the  &antp  of  this  verse  introduce  not  the  first,  but  the 
second  member  of  the  comparison,  the  first  being  to  be  supplied 
in  thought,  or  borrowed  from  what  precedes :  '  We  receive  right- 
eousness and  life  through  Christ,  as  by  one  man  sin  entered  into 
the  world;'  or,  'Wherefore  Christ  stands  in  a  relation  to  man- 
kind analogous  to  that  of  Adam,  as  by  one  man,'  &c.  But  it  is 
plain  that  no  reader  could  imagine  that  Paul  intended  so  essen- 
tial a  member  of  the  comparison  to  be  conjectured  or  framed 
from  the  preceding  discussion.  He  does  not  leave  his  readers 
to  supply  one  half  of' a  sentence;  he  himself  completes  it  in 
ver.  18. 


ROMANS  V.  12.  227 

By  one  man  sin  entered  into  the  worlds  dt  kvbi;  dv^pcoTTou, 
x.T.L  These  words  clearly  declare  a  causal  relation  between 
the  one  man,  Adam,  and  the  entrance  of  sin  into  the  world. 
Benecke,  who  has  revived  the  doctrine  of  the  preexistence  of 
souls,  supposes  that  Adam  was  the  leader  of  the  spirits  who  in 
the  preexistent  state  sinned,  and  were  condemned  to  be  born  as 
men.  Adam  was  therefore  the  cause  of  sin  entering  into  the 
world,  because  he  was  the  author  of  this  ante-mundane  apos- 
tasy. The  Pelagian  theory  is,  that  Adam  was  the  mere  occa- 
sional cause  of  men  becoming  sinners.  He  was  the  first  sinner, 
and  others  followed  his  example.  Or,  according  to  another 
form  of  the  same  general  idea,  his  sin  was  the  occasion  of  God's 
giving  men  up  to  sin.  There  was  no  real  connection,  either 
natural  or  judicial,  between  Adam's  sin  and  the  sinfulness  of 
his  posterity;  but  God  determined  that  if  the  first  man  sinned, 
all  other  men  should.  This  was  a  divine  constitution,  without 
there  being  any  causal  connection  between  the  two  events. 
Others  again  say  that  Adam  was  the  efiicient  cause  of  the  sin- 
fulness of  his  race.  He  deteriorated  either  physically  or  morally 
the  nature  which  he  transmitted  to  his  posterity.  He  was 
therefore,  in  the  same  sense,  the  cause  of  the  sinfulness  of  the 
race,  that  a  father  who  impairs  his  constitution  is  the  cause  of 
the  feebleness  of  his  children.  Others  push  this  idea  one  step 
farther,  and  say  that  Adam  was  the  race.  He  was  not  only  a 
man,  but  man.  The  whole  race  was  in  him,  so  that  his  act  was 
the  act  of  humanity.  It  was  as  much  and  as  truly  ours  as  his. 
Others  say  that  the  causal  relation  expressed  by  these  words  is 
that  which  exists  between  sin  and  punishment.  It  was  the 
judicial  cause  or  reason.  All  these  views  must  come  up  at 
every  step  in  the  interpretation  of  this  whole  passage,  for  the 
explanation  of  each  particular  clause  must  be  determined  by 
the  nature  of  the  relation  which  is  assumed  to  exist  between 
Adam  and  his  posterity.  All  that  need  be  said  here  is,  that 
the  choice  between  these  several  explanations  is  not  determined 
by  the  mere  meaning  of  the  words.  All  they  assert  is,  that 
Adam  was  the  cause  of  all  men  becoming  sinners ;  but  whether 
he  was  the  occasional,  the  eflScient,  or,  so  to  speak,  the  judicial 
cause,  can  only  be  determined  by  the  nature  of  the  case,  the 
analogy  of  Scripture,  and  the  context.     One  thing  is  clear — 


228  ROMANS  V.  12. 

Adam  was  the  cause  of  sin  in  a  sense  analogous  to  that  in  which 
Christ  is  the  cause  of  righteousness. 

Sin  entered  into  the  world.  It  is  hardly  necessary  to  remark, 
that  xoafxoi;  does  not  here  mean  the  universe.  Sin  existed 
before  the  fall  of  Adam.  It  can  only  mean  the  world  of  man- 
kind. Sin  entered  the  world ;  it  invaded  the  race.  There  is  a 
personification  here  of  sin,  as  afterwards  of  death.  Both  are 
represented  as  hostile  and  evil  powers,  which  obtained  dominion 
over  man.  By  the  words  BcarjX&e  zt<;  vbu  xoajiov,  much  more  is 
meant  than  that  sin  began  to  be  in  the  world.  It  means  that 
the  world,  xoff/jiot;,  mankind  became  sinners ;  because  this  clause 
is  explained  by  saying,  all  sinned.  The  entrance  of  sin  is  made 
the  ground  of  the  universality  of  death,  and  therefore  all  were 
involved  in  the  sin  whose  entrance  is  mentioned.  The  word 
dfjiapTca  means,  1.  Actual  sin,  {d-iidprrjixa,)  an  individual  act  of 
disobedience  or  want  of  conformity  to  the  law  of  God.  In 
the  plural  form  especially,  6.fxapr'ta  means  actual  sin.  Hence 
the  expressions,  "this  sin,"  "respect  of  persons  is  sin,"  &c. 
2.  Sinful  principle  or  disposition ;  an  immanent  state  of  the 
mind,  as  in  Bom.  vii.  8,  9,  17,  23.  3.  Both  ideas  are  united, 
as  when  it  is  said,  "the  sting  of  death  is  sin,"  "an  offering  for 
sin."  This  comprehensive  sense  of  the  word  is  perhaps  the  most 
common.  4.  It  often  means  the  guilt  of  sin  as  distinguished 
from  sin  itself,  as  when  it  is  said,  "he  shall  bear  his  sin,"  or, 
"the  son  shall  not  bear  the  sin  of  his  father;"  or  when  Christ 
is  said  "to  bear  our  sin,"  and,  "to  take  away  sin  by  the  sacri- 
fice of  himself,"  &c.  In  this  passage,  when  it  is  said  "sin 
entered  into  the  world,"  the  meaning  may  be,  actual  sin  com- 
menced its  course,  men  began  to  sin.  Or  the  meaning  is, 
depravity,  corruption  of  nature  invaded  the  world,  men  became 
corrupt.  This  is  the  interpretation  given  to  the  words  by  a 
large  class  of  commentators,  ancient  and  modern.  So  Calvin, 
"Istud  peccare  est  corruptos  esse  et  vitiates.  Ilia  enim  natu- 
ralis  pravitas,  quam  e  matris  utero  afferimus,  tametsi  non  ita 
cito  fructus  sues  edit,  peccatum  est  coram  Deo,  ejus  ultionem 
meretur.  Atque  hoc  est  peccatum  quod  vocant  originale."  So 
also  Olshausen,  who  says  it  means  habitus  peccandi,  that  inward 
principle  of  which  individual  sins  are  the  expression  or  manifest- 
ation.    Tholuck  gives  the  same  interpretation :  a  new,  abiding, 


ROMANS  V.  12.  229 

corrupting  element,  he  says,  was  introduced  into  the  organism 
of  the  world.  De  Wette's  explanation  amounts  to  the  same 
thing :  "  Siinde  als  herrschende  Macht,  (sin  as  a  ruling  power 
entered  the  world,)  partly  as  a  principle  or  disposition,  which, 
according  to  vii.  8,  slumbers  in  every  man's  breast,  and  reveals 
itself  in  the  general  conduct  of  men,  and  partly  as  a  sinful 
condition,  such  as  Paul  had  described  in  the  opening  chapters 
of  this  epistle."  RUckert,  Kollner,  Bretschneider,  and  most 
moderns,  unite  with  the  older  expositors  in  this  interpretation. 
Or  d.{xapria  may  here  have  the  third  signification  mentioned 
above,  and  "sin  entered  into  the  world,"  mean  that  men  became 
guilty,  i.  e.  exposed  to  condemnation.  The  objection  to  these 
several  interpretations  is,  that  each  by  itself  is  too  limited.  All 
three,  taken  collectively,  are  correct.  "  Sin  entered  into  the 
world,"  means  "men  became  sinners,"  or,  as  the  apostle 
expresses  it  in  ver.  19,  "they  were  constituted  sinners."  This 
includes  guilt,  depravity,  and  actual  transgression.  "  The  sin- 
fulness of  that  estate  into  which  man  fell,  (that  is,  the  sin 
which  Adam  brought  upon  the  world,)  consists  in  the  guilt  of 
Adam's  first  sin,  the  want  of  original  righteousness,  and  the 
corruption  of  his  whole  nature,  which  is  commonly  called 
original  sin ;  together  with  all  actual  transgressions  which  pro- 
ceed from  it." 

And  death  by  sin;  that  is,  death  entered  the  world,  men 
became  subject  to  death,  dta  rr^^  difxapriaz,  by  means  of  sin. 
Sin  was  the  cause  of  death ;  not  the  mere  occasional  cause,  not 
the  efficient  cause,  but  the  ground  or  reason  of  its  infliction. 
This  passage,  therefore,  teaches  that  death  is  a  penal  evil,  and 
not  a  consequence  of  the  original  constitution  of  man.  Paul, 
in  1  Cor.  xv.  40 — 50,  appears  to  teach  a  contrary  doctrine,  for 
he  there  says  that  Adam's  body,  as  formed  from  the  earth,  was 
earthy,  and  therefore  corruptible.  It  was  flesh  and  blood, 
which  cannot  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God.  It  must  be  changed, 
60  that  this  corruptible  put  on  incorruption,  before  we  can  be 
fitted  for  immortality.  These  representations,  however,  are  not 
inconsistent.  It  is  clear,  from  Gen.  ii.  17,  iii.  19,  that  had 
Adam  never  sinned,  he  would  never  have  died ;  but  it  does  not 
follow  that  he  would  never  have  been  changed.  Paul  says  of 
believers,  "we  shall  not  all  die,  but  we  shall  all  be  changed," 


230  ROMANS  V.  12. 

1  Cor.  XV.  51.  The  penal  character  of  death,  therefore,  which  is 
so  prominently  presented  in  Scripture,  or  that  death  in  the  case 
of  every  moral  creature  is  assumed  to  be  evidence  of  sin,  is  per- 
fectly consistent  with  what  the  apostle  says  of  the  a^fxa  ^uyixov 
(the  natural  body,)  and  of  its  unsuitableness  for  an  immortal 
existence.  It  is  plain  that  ddvaro^  here  includes  the  idea  of 
natural  death,  as  it  does  in  the  original  threatening  made  to 
our  first  parents.  In  neither  case,  however,  is  this  its  whole 
meaning.  This  is  admitted  by  a  majority  of  the  modern  com- 
mentators— not  only  by  such  writers  as  Tholuck,  Olshausen, 
and  Philippi,  but  by  others  of  a  different  class,  as  De  Wette, 
KoUner,  and  Ruckert.  That  the  death  here  spoken  of  includes 
all  penal  evil,  death  spiritual  and  eternal,  as  well  as  the  disso- 
lution of  the  body,  is  evident,  1.  From  the  consideration  that 
it  is  said  to  be  the  consequence  of  sin.  It  must,  therefore, 
mean  that  death  which  the  Scriptures  elsewhere  speak  of  as  the 
consequence  and  punishment  of  transgression.  2.  Because  this 
is  the  common  and  favourite  term  with  the  sacred  writers,  from 
first  to  last,  for  the  penal  consequences  of  sin.  Gen.  ii.  17, 
"In  the  day  thou  eatest  thereof,  thou  shalt  surely  die,"  i.  e. 
thou  shalt  become  subject  to  the  punishment  due  to  sin ;  Ezek. 
xviii.  4,  "The  soul  that  sinneth,  it  shall  die;"  Rom.  vi.  23, 
"The  wages  of  sin  is  death;"  chap.  viii.  13,  "If  ye  live  after 
the  flesh,  ye  shall  die."  Such  passages  are  altogether  too 
numerous  to  be  quoted,  or  even  referred  to;  see,  as  further 
examples,  Rom.  i.  32,  vii.  5,  James  i.  15,  Rev.  xx.  14,  &c. 
3.  From  the  constant  opposition  between  the  terms  life  and 
deaths  throughout  the  Scriptures;  the  former  standing  for  the 
rewards  of  the  righteous,  the  latter  for  the  punishment  of  the 
wicked.  Thus,  in  Gen.  ii.  17,  life  was  promised  to  our  first 
parents  as  the  reward  of  obedience;  and  death  threatened  as 
the  punishment  of  disobedience.  See  Deut.  xxx.  15,  "I  have 
set  before  thee  life  and  death;"  Jer.  xxi.  8,  Prov.  xi.  19,  Ps. 
xxxvi.  9,  Matt.  xxv.  46,  John  iii.  15,  2  Cor.  ii.  16,  &c.  4.  From 
the  opposition  in  this  passage  between  the  life  which  is  by 
Christ,  and  the  death  which  is  by  Adam,  vs.  15,  17,  21,  *  Sin 
reigns  unto  death,  grace  reigns  through  righteousness  unto 
eternal  life.'  As,  however,  natural  death  is  a  part,  and  the 
most  obvious  part  of  the  penal  evils  of  sin,  it  no  doubt  was 


ROMANS  V.  12.  231 

prominent  in  the  apostle's  mind,  as  appears  from  vs.  13,  14. 
Death,  therefore,  in  this  passage,  means  the  evil,  and  any  evil 
which  is  inflicted  in  punishment  of  sin. 

Aiid  so  death  passed  on  all  men.  That  is,  as  death  is  the 
necessary  consequence  of  sin,  death  {dcr^Xd^e)  passed  through, 
reached  to  all  men,  because  all  sinned.  Death  is  universal, 
because  sin  is  universal.  As  Adam  brought  sin  on  all  men,  he 
brought  death  on  all.  That  this  is  the  true  interpretation  of 
this  clause,  or  that  xal  outox;  means  demzufolge,  consequently, 
hence  it  happens,  is  admitted  by  almost  all  modern  commenta- 
tors. As  already  remarked,  the  interpretation  which  assumes 
that  xac  outw^  is  to  be  rendered  so  also,  is  entirely  inadmissible, 
1.  Because  it  is  inconsistent  with  their  meaning.  As  it  is  impos- 
sible that  and  so  should  mean  so  also,  it  is  no  less  impossible 
that  xac  ouzcot;  should  mean  the  same  as  outoj  xac.  Compare 
vs.  18,  19,  1  Cor.  xi.  12,  xii.  12,  xv.  22.  This  interpretation 
therefore  does  violence  to  the  language.  2.  It  is  no  less  incon- 
sistent with  the  context.  It  is  not  Paul's  design  to  teach  the 
inseparable  connection  between  sin  and  death,  by  saying,  L4.s 
Adam  sinned,  and  therefore  died,  so  also  all  die,  because  all 
sin.'  His  purpose  is  to  teach  the  connection  between  Adam's  sin 
and  the  death  of  all  men :  '  It  was  bi/  one  man  that  men  became 
sinners,  and  hence  all  men  die.'  As  all  were  involved  in  his 
sin,  all  are  involved  in  his  death.  3.  The  comparison  carried 
through  this  whole  paragraph  is  not  between  Adam  and  his 
posterity,  but  between  Adam  and  Christ;  and  therefore  xai 
outox;  cannot  possibly  refer  to  the  woTiep  at  the  beginning  of 
the  verse,  as  has  been  already  shown. 

For  that  all  have  sinned,  k<p'  (p  TfduTSi;  ^fiapzou.  The  words 
if  (p  are  rendered  in  the  Vulgate,  in  quo,  (in  whom,)  and  are  so 
understood  by  many  of  the  older  interpreters,  not  only  in  the 
Romish  Church,  where  the  Vulgate  is  of  authority,  but  also  by 
many  Calvinists  and  Arminians.  The  objections  to  this  inter- 
pretation are,  1.  It  is  not  in  accordance  with  the  meaning  of 
the  words  as  used  elsewhere.  It  is  inconsistent  with  the  proper 
force  of  STzi  [on,  upon,)  which  is  not  equivalent  with  in  (in,) 
and  no  less  inconsistent  with  the  use  of  i<p''  (p  in  combination, 
which,  in  2  Cor.  v.  4,  means,  as  here,  because;  in  Philip,  iii.  12, 
for  which  cause;  and  in  Philip,  iv.  10,  for  which.     In  other 


232  ROMANS  V.  12. 

places  where  it  occurs,  it  means  on  which,  as  a  bed,  Mark  ii.  4, 
Luke  V.  25,  or  as  a  place,  Acts,  vii.  33.  2.  The  proper  mean- 
ing of  the  words  is,  Im  toutuj  otc,  on  account  of  this,  or  that. 
3.  The  structure  of  the  sentence  is  opposed  to  this  explanation. 
The  antecedent  dvd^pojTcou  is  too  far  separated  from  the  relative 
<jw;  almost  the  whole  verse  intervenes  between  them.  4.  This 
interpretation  is  altogether  unnecessary.  The  ordinary  and 
natural  force  of  the  words  expresses  a  perfectly  good  sense : 
'All  men  die,  because  all  sinned.'  So  Calvin,  quandoquidem, 
Luther,  dieweil,  and  all  the  moderns,  except  a  few  of  the 
Romanists.  "  Sin  brought  death,  death  has  come  on  all,  because 
sin  came  on  all ;  i<p'  w  must  therefore  necessarily  be  taken  as 
a  conjunction."  Philippic 

As  to  the  important  words  Trctvrec  '^fiapzov,  rendered  in  our 
version  all  have  sinned,  we  find  the  several  interpretations 
already  referred  to  as  growing  out  of  the  different  views  of  the 
nature  of  man  and  of  the  plan  of  salvation.  First,  on  the  assump- 
tion that  all  sin  consists  in  the  voluntary  transgression  of  known 
law,  and  on  the  further  assumption  that  one  man  cannot,  in  any 
legitimate  sense,  be  said  to  sin  in  another,  a  large  class  of  com- 
mentators, from  Pelagius  down,  say  these  words  can  only  mean 
that  all  have  sinned  in  their  own  persons.  Death  has  passed 
on  all  men,  because  all  have  actually  sinned  personally.  This 
interpretation,  although  consistent  with  the  signification  of  the 
verb  6.fxaprdvo),  is,  by  the  almost  unanimous  judgment  of  the 
Church,  utterly  inadmissible.  1.  It  is  inconsistent  with  the 
force  of  the  tense.  The  aorist  {TjfxapTov)  does  not  mean  do  sin, 
nor  have  sinned,  nor  are  accustomed  to  sin.  It  is  the  simple 
historical  tense,  expressing  momentary  action  in  past  time.  All 
sinned,  i.  e.  sinned  in  Adam,  sinned  through  or  by  one  man. 
"  Omnes  pecc^runt,  peccante  Adamo."  This  is  the  literal, 
simple  force  of  the  words.  2.  It  is  also  incompatible  with  the 
design  of  this  verse,  to  make  -^[xapzov  refer  to  the  personal  sins 
of  men.  As  so  often  remarked,  the  design  is  to  show  that 
Adam's  sin,  not  our  own,  is  the  cause  of  death.  3.  Verses 
13,  14,  are  intended  to  prove  what  is  asserted  in  ver.  12;  but 
they  do  not  prove  that  all  men  personally  sin,  but  the  very 
reverse.  4.  This  interpretation  destroys  the  analogy  between 
Adam  and  Christ.     It  would  make  the  apostle  teach,  that  as 


ROMANS  V.  12.  233 

all  men  die  because  they  personally  sin,  so  all  men  live  because 
they  are  personally  and  inherently  righteous.  This  is  contrary 
not  only  to  this  whole  passage,  but  to  all  Paul's  teaching,  and 
to  the  whole  gospel.  5.  This  interpretation  is  not  only  thus 
inconsistent  with  the  force  of  the  tense  in  which  the  verb 
d-naprdvu)  is  here  used,  with  the  design  of  the  verse,  with  the 
apostle's  argument,  and  the  analogy  between  Christ  and  Adam, 
but  it  makes  the  apostle  assert  what  is  not  true.  It  is  not  true 
that  all  die  because  all  personally  sin;  death  is  more  exten- 
sive than  personal  transgression.  This  is  a  fact  of  experience, 
and  is  asserted  by  the  apostle  in  what  follows.  This  interpre- 
tation, therefore,  brings  the  sacred  writer  into  conflict  with  the 
truth.  Candid  expositors  admit  this.  They  say  Paul's  argu- 
ment is  founded  on  a  false  assumption,  and  proves  nothing. 
Even  Meyer,  one  of  the  most  dignified  and  able  of  the  modern 
German  commentators,  who  often  defends  the  sacred  writers 
from  the  aspersions  of  irreverent  expositors,  is  obliged  to  admit 
that  in  this  case  Paul  forgot  himself,  and  teaches  what  is  not 
true.  "The  question,"  he  says,  "how  Paul  could  write  i^'  <^ 
Ttduzei:  -^fiapzou  (since  all  sinned,)  when  children  die,  although 
they  have  not  sinned,  can  only  be  answered  by  admitting  that 
he  did  not  think  of  this  necessary  exception.  For,  on  the  one 
hand,  Tidwe^  must  have  the  same  extent  of  meaning  as  the  pre- 
vious £«c  Tcdvra^  dvd-pcoTzooz,  and  on  the  other  hand,  the  death  of 
innocent  children  is  proof  positive  that  death  is  not  in  all  men 
the  consequence  of  individual  sin;  and  hence,  moreover,  the 
whole  doctrine  that  death  is  by  divine  constitution  due  to  sin, 
is  overthrown."  An  interpretation  which  makes  the  apostle 
teach  what  is  not  true,  needs  no  further  refutation. 

A  second  large  class  of  commentators,  as  they  make  b-fxapzia, 
in  the  former  clause  of  the  verse,  to  mean  corruption,  translate 
kip'  w  TcdvTBZ  rjpaprov,  because  all  are  corrupt.  Adam  having 
defiled  his  own  nature  by  sin,  that  depraved  nature  was  trans- 
mitted to  all  his  posterity,  and  therefore  all  die  because  they 
are  thus  inherently  corrupt.  We  have  already  seen  that  this  is 
Calvin's  interpretation  of  these  words:  "Nempe,  inquit,  quo- 
niam  omnes  peccavimus.  Porro  istud  peccare  est  corruptos 
esse  et  vitiates."  In  this  view  several  of  the  modern  commenta- 
tors concur.     According  to  this  interpretation,  the  doctrine  of 


234  ROMANS  V.  12. 

the  apostle  is,  that  the  inherent,  hereditary  corruption  of  nature 
derived  from  Adam,  is  the  ground  or  reason  why  all  die.  This 
is  what  is  called  mediate  imputation ;  or  the  doctrine  that  not 
the  sin  of  Adam,  but  inherent  depravity  derived  from  him,  is 
the  ground  of  the  condemnation  of  his  race.  Although  Calvin 
gives  this  interpretation  of  the  passage  on  which  this  theory  is 
founded,  it  is  not  to  be  inferred  that  he  was  an  advocate  of  that 
theory.  He  frequently  and  clearly  discriminates  between  inhe- 
rent depravity  as  a  ground  of  condemnation  and  the  sin  of 
Adam  as  distinct,  and  says  that  we  are  exposed  to  death,  not 
solely  for  the  one,  but  also  for  the  other.  He  lived  in  a  day 
when  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  was  made,  by  the  theolo- 
gians of  the  Romish  Church,  so  prominent  as  to  leave  inherent 
depravity  almost  entirely  out  of  view.  The  whole  tendency  of 
the  Reformers,  therefore,  was  to  go  to  the  opposite  extreme. 
Every  theology  is  a  gradual  growth.  It  cost  the  Church  ages 
of  controversy,  before  the  doctrines  of  the  Trinity  and  of  the 
Person  of  Christ  were  wrought  out  and  definitively  settled.  In 
like  manner,  the  Theology  of  the  Reformation  was  a  growth. 
It  was  not  the  reproduction  of  the  theology  of  any  class  of  the 
schoolmen,  nor  of  Augustin  as  a  whole.  It  was  the  gathering 
up  and  systematizing  of  the  teachings  of  the  Scriptures,  and  of 
the  faith  of  the  Church  as  founded  on  Scripture.  That  this 
should  be  done  without  any  admixture  of  foreign  elements,  or 
as  perfectly  at  the  first  attempt,  as  in  the  course  of  successive 
subsequent  efibrts,  would  have  been  a  miracle.  That  it  was 
done  as  perfectly  as  it  was,  is  due,  under  God,  to  the  fact  that 
the  Reformers  were  men  endowed  with  minds  of  the  very  highest 
order,  and  filled  with  the  Spirit  of  Christ.  Still  it  is  only  in 
obedience  to  an  established  law,  that  the  theology  of  the  Re- 
formation appears  in  a  purer  form  in  the  writers  of  the  seven- 
teenth, than  in  those  of  the  sixteenth  century.  We  need  not 
then  be  surprised  that  inconsistencies  appear  in  the  writings  of 
Luther  and  Calvin,  which  are  not  reproduced  in  those  of  Hutter 
or  Turrettin. 

In  opposition  to  the  interpretation  which  makes  7:duTS^ 
^fiapzov  mean  all  became  corrupt,  it  is  obvious  to  object,  1.  That 
it  is  contrary  to  the  simple  meaning  of  the  words.  In  no  case 
has  d-naptdvu)  the  sense  here  assigned  to  it.     2.  It  supposes 


ROMANS  V.  12.  235 

that  the  corresponding  phrase,  "sin  entered  into  the  world," 
means  "men  became  depraved,"  which,  as  we  have  seen,  is  not 
the  true  or  adequate  meaning.  3.  It  is  inconsistent  with  the 
apostle's  argument.  Verses  13,  14,  are  designed  to  prove,  and 
do  prove,  that  all  men  sinned  in  Adam ;  but  do  not  prove,  and 
cannot  be  made  to  prove,  that  all  men  are  inherently  corrupt. 
4.  It  vitiates  the  whole  analogy  between  Christ  and  Adam,  and 
therefore  saps  the  very  foundation  of  the  gospel.  That  doc- 
trine on  which  the  hope  of  God's  people,  either  implicitly  or 
explicitly,  has  ever  been  founded  is,  that  the  righteousness  of 
Christ  as  something  out  of  themselves,  something  distinguished 
from  any  act  or  subjective  state  of  theirs,  is  the  ground  of  their 
justification.  They  know  that  there  is  nothing  in  them  on 
which  they  dare  for  a  moment  rely,  as  the  reason  why  God 
Bhould  accept  and  pardon  them.  It  is  therefore  the  essential 
part  of  the  analogy  between  Christ  and  Adam,  the  very  truth 
which  the  apostle  designs  to  set  forth,  that  the  sin  of  Adam,  as 
distinguished  from  any  act  of  ours,  and  from  inherent  corrup- 
tion as  derived  from  him,  is  the  ground  of  our  condemnation. 
If  this  be  denied,  then  the  other  great  truth  must  be  denied, 
and  our  own  subjective  righteousness  be  made  the  ground  of 
our  justification ;  which  is  to  subvert  the  gospel.  5.  This  inter- 
pretation is  inconsistent  with  the  true  meaning  of  vs.  15 — 19, 
and  with  the  often  repeated  and  explicit  declaration  of  the 
apostle,  that  the  sin  of  Adam  was  the  ground  of  our  condemna- 
tion. Although,  therefore,  it  is  true  that  our  nature  was  cor- 
rupted in  Adam,  and  has  been  transmitted  to  us  in  a  depraved 
state,  yet  that  hereditary  corruption  is  not  here  represented  as 
the  ground  of  our  condemnation,  any  more  than  the  holiness 
which  believers  derive  from  Christ  is  the  ground  of  their  justi- 
fication. 

A  third  class  of  interpreters,  especially  those  of  the  later 
mystical  school,  understand  the  apostle  to  assert  that  all  men 
sinned  actually  in  Adam ;  that  his  act  was  not  merely  repre- 
sentatively or  putatively  their  act,  but  theirs  in  the  strict  and 
proper  sense  of  the  term.  He  being  not  simply  a  man  as  one 
among  many,  but  the  man  in  whom  humanity  was  concentrated 
as  a  generic  life,  his  act  as  an  act  of  that  generic  humanity  was 
the  act  of  all  the  individuals  in  whom  human  nature  subse- 


236  ROMANS  V.  12. 

quently  developed  itself.  But,  1.  In  the  first  place,  the  pro- 
position, "all  men  sinned  actually  in  Adam,"  has  no  meaning. 
To  say  that  "in  Adam  all  die,"  conveys  a  distinct  idea;  but  to 
say  that  "all  actually  expired  in  Adam,"  conveys  no  idea  at 
all.  It  has  no  sense.  Even  on  the  extremest  realistic  assump- 
tion that  humanity  as  such  is  an  entity,  the  act  of  Adam  was 
not  the  act  of  all  men.  His  act  may  have  vitiated  his  generic 
nature,  not  only  for  his  own  person,  but  for  his  posterity ;  but 
this  is  a  very  different  thing  from  his  act  being  their  act.  His 
sin  was  an  intelligent  act  of  self-determination;  but  an  act  of 
rational  self-determination  is  a  personal  act.  Unless,  there- 
fore, all  men  as  persons  existed  in  Adam,  it  is  impossible  that 
they  acted  his  act.  To  say  that  a  man  acted  thousands  of  years 
before  his  personality  began,  does  not  rise  even  to  the  dignity 
of  a  contradiction ;  it  has  no  meaning  at  all.  It  is  a  monstrous 
evil  to  make  the  Bible  contradict  the  common  sense  and  com- 
mon consciousness  of  men.  This  is  to  make  God  contradict 
himself.  2.  It  is  hardly  necessary  to  add,  that  this  interpreta- 
tion is  inconsistent  with  the  whole  drift  and  design  of  the  pas- 
sage, and  with  the  often  repeated  assertion  of  the  apostle,  that 
for  the  offence  of  one  man  (not  of  all  men,)  the  judgment  came 
on  all  men  to  condemnation.  If  we  all  actually  sinned  in  Adam^ 
so  that  his  act  was  strictly  ours,  then  we  all  obeyed  in  Christ, 
and  his  righteousness  and  death  were  strictly  our  own  acts; 
which  again  is  not  only  unscriptural,  but  impossible. 

The  fourth  class  of  interpreters,  including  commentators  of 
every  grade  of  orthodoxy,  agree  in  saying  that  what  is  meant 
is,  that  all  sinned  in  Adam  as  their  head  and  representative. 
Such  was  the  relation,  natural  and  federal,  between  him  and  his 
posterity,  that  his  act  was  putatively  their  act.  That  is,  it  was 
the  judicial  ground  or  reason  why  death  passed  on  all  men.  In 
other  words,  they  were  regarded  and  treated  as  sinners  on 
account  of  his  sin.  In  support  of  this  interpretation,  it  may  be 
urged,  1.  That  it  is  the  simple  meaning  of  the  words.  It  has 
already  been  remarked,  that  the  aorist  Tjfxaprov  does  not  mean 
are  sinful,  or  have  sinned^  but  simply  sinned.  All  sinned  when 
Adam  sinned.  They  sinned  in  him.  But  the  only  possible 
way  in  which  all  men  can  be  said  to  have  sinned  in  Adam,  is 
putatively.     His  act,  for  some  good  and  proper  reason,  was 


ROMANS  V.  12.  237 

regarded  as  their  act,  just  as  the  act  of  an  agent  is  regarded  as 
the  act  of  his  principal,  or  the  act  of  a  representative  as  that 
of  his  constituents.  The  act  of  the  one  legally  binds  the  others. 
It  is,  in  the  eye  of  law  and  justice,  their  act.  2.  This  is  sustained 
by  the  analogy  of  Scripture.  Paul  says,  "in  Adam  all  died." 
This  cannot  possibly  be  understood  to  mean  that  all  men  ex- 
pired when  Adam  died.  It  can  only  mean  that  when  Adam 
incurred  the  sentence  of  death  for  himself,  he  incurred  it  also 
for  us.  In  like  manner  we  are  said  to  die  in  Christ;  we  "were 
crucified  with  him,"  we  "rose  with  him,"  we  are  now  "sitting 
with  him  in  heavenly  places."  All  this  obviously  means,  that 
as  Christ  was  the  head  and  representative  of  his  people,  all  that 
he  did  in  that  character,  they  are  regarded  as  having  done. 
The  rationalistic  and  the  mystical  interpretations  of  such  pas- 
sages are  only  different  modes  of  philosophizing  away  the 
meaning  of  Scripture — the  one  having  what  is  called  "common 
sense,"  and  the  other  pantheism,  as  its  basis.  3.  The  common 
interpretation  of  this  passage  may,  in  another  form,  be  shown 
to  be  in  accordance  with  scriptural  usage.  As  remarked  above, 
dfiapzca  sometimes  means  guilt,  and  the  phrase  "sin  entered 
into  the  world,"  may  mean  men  became  guilty;  and  d.fxaprdva) 
at  times  means  to  contract  guilt;  or,  as  Wahl  in  his  Lexicon 
defines  it,  peccati  culpam  sustineo;  equivalent  to  dfiaprcoXbi; 
xareazdd^fjv.  He  refers  to  the  use  of  son,  in  Gen.  xUv.  32,  a 
passage  which  the  LXX.  renders  ^fxaprrjxo)^  saofxac;  the  Vul- 
gate, peccati  reus  ero;  Luther,  "willich  die  Schuld  tragen;" 
and  the  English,  I  shall'  bear  the  blame.  So  in  Gen.  xliii.  9, 
Judah  says  to  his  father,  "If  I  bring  him  not  back,  I  will 
bear  the  blame  (literally,  I  will  sin)  all  my  days."  In  1  Kings 
i.  21,  Bathsheba  says  to  David,  (according  to  the  Hebrew,) 
"I  and  my  son  Solomon  shall  be  sinners,"  where  the  LXX. 
translates,  icropie^a  iyd)  xai  SaXoptcbv  b  Uc6^  {jloo  dfiapTwkoc, 
the  sense  of  the  passage  being,  as  correctly  expressed  in  our 
version,  "I  and  my  son  Solomon  shall  be  counted  offenders." 
To  sin,  therefore,  or  to  be  a  sinner  may,  in  scriptural  language, 
mean  to  be  counted  an  offender,  that  is,  be  regarded  and  treated 
as  such.  When,  therefore,  the  apostle  says  that  all  men  sinned 
in  Adam,  it  is  in  accordance  not  only  with  the  nature  of  the 
case,  but  with  scriptural  usage,  to  understand  him  to  mean  that 


238  ROMANS  V.  12. 

we  are  regarded  and  treated  as  sinners  on  his  account.  His  sin 
was  the  reason  why  death  came  upon  all  men.  Of  course  all 
that  is  meant  by  this  is  the  universally  recognized  distinction 
between  the  signification  and  the  sense  of  a  word.  /Mvre? 
rjjxaprov  signifies  "all  sinned,"  and  it  can  signify  nothing  else; 
just  as  TTCivrec  d.7:e&avou,  2  Cor.  v.  15,  signifies  "all  died."  But 
when  you  ask  in  what  sense  all  died  in  Christ,  or  all  sinned  in 
Adam,  the  question  is  to  be  answered  from  the  nature  of  the 
case  and  the  analogy  of  Scripture.  We  did  not  all  literally  and 
actually  die  in  Christ,  neither  did  we  all  actually  sin  in  Adam» 
The  death  of  Christ,  however,  was  legally  and  effectively  our 
death ;  and  the  sin  of  Adam  was  legally  and  effectively  our  sin. 
4.  It  is  almost  universally  conceded  that  this  12th  verse  con- 
tains the  first  member  of  a  comparison  which,  in  vs.  18,  19,  is 
resumed  and  carried  out.  But  in  those  verses  it  is  distinctly 
taught  that  'judgment  came  on  all  men  on  account  of  the 
offence  of  one  man.'  This  therefore  is  Paul's  own  interpreta- 
tion of  what  he  meant  when  he  said  "all  sinned."  They  sinned 
in  Adam.  His  sin  was  regarded  as  theirs.  5.  This  interpreta- 
tion is  demanded  by  the  connection  of  this  verse  with  those 
immediately  following.  Verses  13,  14,  introduced  by  /or,  are 
confessedly  designed  to  prove  the  assertion  of  ver.  12.  If  that 
assertion  is,  'all  men  are  regarded  as  sinners  on  account  of 
Adam,'  the  meaning  and  pertinency  of  these  verses  are  clear. 
But  if  ver.  12  asserts  merely  that  all  men  are  sinners,  then 
vs.  13,  14  must  be  regarded  as  proving  that  men  were  sinners 
before  the  time  of  Moses — a  point  which  no  one  denied,  and  no 
one  doubted,  and  which  is  here  entirely  foreign  to  the  apostle's 
object.  Or  if  Ttdvzez  rj/Jtapvov  be  made  to  mean  all  became  cor- 
rupt, the  objection  still  remains.  The  passage  does  not  prove 
what  it  is  designed  to  prove.  Verses  13, 14,  therefore,  present 
insuperable  difficulties,  if  we  assign  any  other  meaning  than 
that  just  given  to  ver.  12.  6.  What  ver.  12  is  thus  made  to 
assert,  and  vs.  13,  14  to  prove,  is  in  vs.  15 — 19,  assumed  as 
proved,  and  is  employed  in  illustration  of  the  great  truth  to  be 
established:  "For  if  through  the  offence  of  one  many  be 
dead,"  ver.  15.  But  where  is  it  said,  or  where  proved,  that  the 
many  die  for  the  offence  of  one,  if  not  in  ver.  12  and  vs.  13,  14? 
So  in  all  the  other  verses.     This  idea,  therefore,  must  be  con- 


ROMANS  V.  12.  239 

tained  in  ver.  12,  if  any  consistency  is  to  be  maintained  between 
the  several  parts  of  the  apostle's  argument.  7.  This  interpre- 
tation is  required  by  the  whole  scope  of  the  passage  and  drift 
of  the  argument.  The  scope  of  the  passage,  as  shown  above, 
is  to  illustrate  the  doctrine  of  justification  on  the  ground  of  the 
righteousness  of  Christ,  by  a  reference  to  the  condemnation  of 
men  for  the  sin  of  Adam.  The  analogy  is  destroyed,  the  very 
point  of  the  comparison  fails,  if  anything  in  us  be  assumed  as 
the  ground  of  the  infliction  of  the  penal  evils  of  which  the 
apostle  is  here  speaking.  That  we  have  corrupt  natures,  and 
are  personally  sinners,  and  therefore  liable  to  other  and  further 
inflictions,  is  indeed  true,  but  nothing  to  the  point.  In  like 
manner,  it  is  true  that  we  are  sanctified  by  our  union  with 
Christ,  and  thus  fitted  for  heaven ;  but  these  ideas  are  out  of 
place  when  speaking  of  justification.  It  is  to  illustrate  that 
doctrine,  or  the  idea  of  imputed  righteousness,  that  this  whole 
passage  is  devoted ;  and,  th-erefore,  the  i<iea  of  imputed  sin  must 
be  contained  in  the  other  part  of  the  comparison,  unless  the 
whole  be  a  failure.  Not  only  does  the  scope  of  the  passage 
demand  this  view,  but  it  is  only  thus  that  the  argument  of  the 
apostle  can  be  consistently  carried  through.  We  die  on  account 
of  Adam's  sin,  ver,  12 ;  this  is  true,  because  on  no  other  ground 
can  the  universality  of  death  be  accounted  for,  vs.  13,  14.  But 
if  we  all  die  on  Adam's  account,  how  much  more  shall  we  live 
on  account  of  Christ !  ver.  15.  A<lam  indeed  brings  upon  us  the 
evil  inflicted  for  the  first  great  violation  of  the  covenant,  but 
Christ  saves  us  from  all  our  numberless  sins,  ver.  16.  As, 
therefore,  for  the  off'ence  of  one  we  are  condemned,  so  for  the 
righteousness  of  one  we  are  justified,  ver.  18.  As  on  account 
of  the  disobedience  of  one  we  are  treated  as  sinners,  so  on 
account  of  the  obedience  of  one  we  are  treated  as  righteous, 
ver.  19.  The  inconsistency  and  confusion  consequent  upon 
attempting  to  carry  either  of  the  other  interpretations  through, 
must  be  obvious  to  any  attentive  reader  of  such  attempts. 
8.  The  doctrine  which  the  verse  thus  explained  teaches,  is  one 
of  the  plainest  truths  of  the  Scriptures  and  of  experience.  Is 
it  not  a  revealed  fact,  above  all  contradiction,  and  sustained  by 
the  whole  history  of  the  world,  that  the  sin  of  Adam  altered 
the  relation  in  which  our  race  stood  to  God  ?     Did  not  that  sin 


240  ROMANS  V.  12. 

of  itself,  and  independently  of  anything  in  us,  or  done  by  us, 
bring  evil  on  the  world  ?  In  other  words,  did  we  not  fall  when 
Adam  fell  ?  The  principle  involved  in  this  great  transaction  is 
explicitly  and  frequently  asserted  in  the  word  of  God,  and  runs 
through  all  the  dispensations  of  his  providence.  He  solemnly 
declares  himself  to  be  a  God  who  "  visits  the  iniquities  of  the 
fathers  upon  the  children,  and  upon  the  children's  children, 
unto  the  third  and  fourth  generation."  And  so  he  does.  The 
curse  of  Canaan  fell  on  his  posterity;  the  Egyptians  perished 
for  the  sins  of  Pharaoh;  the  Moabites  and  Amalekites  were 
destroyed  for  the  transgressions  of  their  fathers ;  the  leprosy 
of  Naaman  was  to  cleave  to  Gehazi,  and  "to  his  seed  for  ever;" 
the  blood  of  all  the  prophets  was  exacted,  says  our  Lord,  of  the 
men  of  his  generation.  We  must  become  not  only  infidels  but 
atheists,  if  we  deny  that  God  thus  deals  with  men,  not  merely 
as  individuals,  but  as  communities  and  on  the  principle  of 
imputation.  The  apostacy  of  our  race  in  Adam,  therefore,  and 
the  imputation  of  his  sin  to  his  posterity,  although  the  most 
signal  of  the  illustrations  of  this  principle,  is  only  one  among 
thousands  of  a  like  kind.  9.  The  doctrine  of  the  imputation 
of  Adam's  sin,  or  that  on  account  of  that  sin  all  men  are 
regarded  and  treated  as  sinners,  was  a  common  Jewish  doctrine 
at  the  time  of  the  apostle,  as  well  as  at  a  later  period.  He 
employs  the  same  mode  of  expression  on  the  subject,  which  the 
Jews  were  accustomed  to  use.  They  could  not  have  failed, 
therefore,  to  understand  him  as  meaning  to  convey  by  these 
expressions  the  ideas  usually  connected  with  them.  And  such, 
therefore,  if  the  apostle  wished  to  be  understood,  must  have 
been  his  intention ;  see  the  Targum  on  Ruth  iv.  22,  "  On 
account  of  the  counsel  given  to  Eve  (and  her  eating  the  fruit,) 
all  the  inhabitants  of  the  world  were  constituted  guilty  of 
death."  R.  Moses  of  Trana,  Beth  Elohim,  fol.  105,  i.  e.  "With 
the  same  sin  with  which  Adam  sinned,  sinned  the  whole  world." 
Many  such  passages  are  to  be  found  in  the  pages  of  Wetstein, 
Schoettgen,  Eisenmenger,  Tholuck,  and  other  collectors  and 
commentators.  Meyer  therefore  admits  that  such  was  unde- 
niably the  doctrine  of  the  Jews.  On  this  point,  Knapp,  in  his 
Theological  Lectures  (German  edition,  page  29,)  says,  "In  the 
Mosaic  account  of  the  fall,  and  in  the  Old  Testament  generally. 


ROMANS  y.  12.  241 

the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  is  not  mentioned  under  the  term 
imputation,  although  the  doctrine  is  contained  therein."  "But 
in  the  writings  of  the  Talmudists  and  Rabhins,  and  earlier  in 
the  Chaldee  Paraphrases  of  the  Old  Testament,  we  find  the  fol- 
lowing position  asserted  in  express  words,  '  that  the  descendants 
of  Adam  would  have  been  punished  with  death  (of  the  body)  on 
account  of  his  sin,  although  they  themselves  had  committed  no 
sin.'  "  On  the  next  page  he  remarks,  "We  find  this  doctrine 
most  clearly  in  the  New  Testament,  in  Rom.  v.  12,  &c.  The 
modern  philosophers  and  theologians  found  here  much  which 
was  inconsistent  with  their  philosophical  systems.  Hence  many 
explained  and  refined  on  the  passage,  until  the  idea  of  imputa- 
tion was  entirely  excluded.  They  forgot,  however,  that  Paul 
used  the  very  words  and  expressions  in  common  use  on  this 
subject  at  that  time  among  the  Jews,  and  that  his  immediate 
readers  could  not  have  understood  him  otherwise  than  as  teach- 
ing this  doctrine."  And  he  immediately  goes  on  to  show,  that 
unless  we  are  determined  to  do  violence  to  the  words  of  the 
apostle,  we  must  admit  that  he  represents  all  men  as  subject  to 
death  on  account  of  the  sin  of  Adam.  This  is  a  theologian  who 
did  not  himself  admit  the  doctrine. 

It  may  be  well  to  remark,  that  this  interpretation,  so  far 
from  being  the  offspring  of  theological  prejudice,  or  fondness 
for  any  special  theory,  is  so  obviously  the  true  and  simple 
meaning  of  the  passage  required  by  the  context,  that  it  has  the 
sanction  of  theologians  of  every  grade  and  class  of  doctrine. 
Calvinists,  Arminians,  Lutherans,  and  Rationalists,  agree  in  its 
support.  Thus  Storr,  one  of  the  most  accurate  of  philological 
interpreters,  explains  the  last  words  of  the  verse  in  the  manner 
stated  above :  "  By  one  man  all  are  subject  to  death,  because 
all  are  regarded  and  treated  as  sinners,  i.  e.  because  all  lie 
under  the  sentence  of  condemnation."  The  phrase,  all  have 
iinned,  ver.  12,  he  says  is  equivalent  to  all  are  constituted  sin- 
ners, ver.  19 ;  which  latter  expression  he  renders,  "  sie  werden 
als  Sunder  angesehen  und  behandelt,"  that  is,  they  were 
regarded  and  treated  as  sinners;  see  his  Commentary  on 
Hebrews,  pp.  636,  640,  &c.  (Flatt  renders  these  words  in  pre- 
cisely the  same  manner.)  The  Rationalist,  Ammon,  also  con- 
siders the  apostle  as  teaching,  that  on  account  of  the  sin  of 
16 


242  ROMANS  V.  12. 

Adam  all  men  are  subject  to  death ;  see  Excursus  C.  to  Koppe's 
Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans.     Zacharise,  in  his 
Biblische  Theologie,  Vol.  VI.,  p.  128,  has  an  excellent  exposi- 
tion of  this  whole  passage.     The  question  of  the  imputation  of 
Adam's  sin,  he  says,  is  this,  "whether  God  regarded  the  act 
of  Adam  as  the  act  of  all  men,  or,  which  is  the  same  thing, 
whether  he  has  subjected  them  all  to  punishment,  on  account 
of  this  single  act."     This,  he  maintains,  the  apostle  asserts  and 
proves.     On  this  verse  he  remarks :  "  The  question  is  not  here 
immediately  about  the  propagation  of  a  corrupted  nature  to  all 
men,  and  of  the  personal  sins  committed  by  all  men,  but  of 
universal  guilt  [Strafwurdigheit,  liability  to  punishment,)  in  the 
sight  of  God,  which  has  come  upon  all  men ;  and  which  Paul, 
in  the  sequel,  does  not  rest  on  the  personal  sins  of  men,  but 
only  on  the  offence  of  one  man,  Adam,  ver.  16."     Neither  the 
corruption  of  nature,  nor  the  actual  sins  of  men,  and  their 
liability  on  account  of  them,  is  either  questioned  or  denied,  but 
the  simple  statement  is,  that,  on  account  of  the  sin  of  Adam,  all 
men  are  treated  as  sinners.     Zacharise,  it  must  be  remembered, 
was  not  a  Calvinist,  but  one  of  the  modern  and  moderate  theo- 
logians of  Gbttingen.     Whitby,  the  great  advocate  of  Armini- 
anism,  says,  on  these  words :  "  It  is  not  true  that  death  came 
upon  all  men,  for  that,  or  because  all  have  sinned.     [He  con- 
tends for  the  rendering,  in  whom.']     For  the  apostle  directly 
here  asserts  the  contrary,  viz.  that  the  death,  and  the  condem- 
nation to  it,  which  befell  all  men,  was  for  the  sin  of  Adam  only ; 
for  here  it  is  expressly  said,  that  by  the  sin  of  one  man  many 
died;  that  the  sentence  was  from  one,  and  by  one  man  sinning 
to  condemnation;  and  that  by  the  sin  of  one,  death  reigned  by 
one.     Therefore,  the  apostle  doth  expressly  teach  us  that  this 
death,  this  condemnation  to  it,  came  not  upon  us  for  the  sin 
of  all,  but  only  for  the  sin  of  one,  i.  e.  of  that  one  Adam,  in 
ivhom  all  men  die,  1  Cor.  xv.  22."    Dr.  Wordsworth,  Canon  of 
Westminster,  in  his  recent  edition  of  the  New  Testament,  says, 
in  his  comment   on   this  verse :    "  Observe   the   aorist   tense, 
^fxapTov,  they  all  sinned;  that  is,  at  a  particular  time.     And 
when  was  that?     Doubtless,  at  the  fall.     All  men  sinned  in 
Adam's  sin.     All  fell  in  his  fall."     Philippi  says:  "We  must 
supply  in  thought  to  ^fiapTov,  iv  'Addfi,   or  more  precisely, 


ROMANS  V.  13,  14.  243 

Adamo  peccante.  'Non  agitur  de  peccato  singulorum,'  says 
Bengel,  'omnes  peccS,runt,  Adamo  peccante.'  "  Such  extracts 
might  be  indefinitely  multiplied  from  the  most  varied  sources. 
However  these  commentators  may  differ  in  other  points,  they 
almost  all  agree  in  the  general  idea,  which  is  the  sum  of  the 
whole  passage,  that  the  sin  of  Adam,  and  not  their  own  indi- 
vidual actual  transgressions,  is  the  ground  and  reason  of  the 
subjection  of  all  men  to  the  penal  evils  here  spoken  of.  With 
what  plausibility  can  an  interpretation,  commanding  the  assent 
of  men  so  various,  be  ascribed  to  theory  or  philosophy,  or  love 
of  a  particular  theological  system?  May  not  its  rejection  with 
more  probability  be  attributed,  as  is  done  by  Knapp,  to  theo- 
logical prejudice  ?  Certain  it  is,  at  least,  that  the  objections 
against  it  are  almost  exclusively  of  a  philosophical  or  theologi- 
*  cal,  rather  than  of  an  exegetical  or  philological  character. 

Verses  13,  14.  For  until  the  law,  sin  was  in  the  world,  &c. 
These  verses  are  connected  hj  for  with  ver.  12,  as  introducing 
the  proof  of  the  declaration  that  death  had  passed  on  all  men, 
on  account  of  one  man.  The  proof  is  this :  the  infliction  of 
penal  evils  implies  the  violation  of  law ;  the  violation  of  the  law 
of  Moses  will  not  account  for  the  universality  of  death,  because 
men  died  before  that  law  was  given.  Neither  is  the  violation 
of  the  law  of  nature  sufficient  to  explain  the  fact  that  all  men 
are  subject  to  death,  because  even  those  die  who  have  never 
broken  that  law.  As,  therefore,  death  supposes  transgression, 
and  neither  the  law  of  Moses  nor  the  law  of  nature  embraces 
all  the  victims  of  death,  it  follows  that  men  are  subject  to  penal 
evils  on  account  of  the  sin  of  Adam.  It  is  for  the  offence  of 
one  that  many  die. 

In  order  to  the  proper  understanding  of  the  apostle's  argu- 
ment, it  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  term  death  stands  for 
penal  evil ;  not  for  this  or  that  particular  form  of  it,  but  for 
any  and  every  evil  judicially  inflicted  for  the  support  of  law. 
Paul's  reasoning  does  not  rest  upon  the  mere  fact  that  all  men, 
even  infants,  are  subject  to  natural  death ;  for  this  might  be 
accounted  for  by  the  violation  of  the  law  of  Moses,  or  of  the 
law  of  nature,  or  by  their  inherent  native  depravity.  This 
covers  the  whole  ground,  and  may  account  for  the  universality 
of  natural  death.    But  no  one  of  these  causes,  nor  all  combined, 


244  ROMANS  V.  13,  14. 

can  account  for  the  infliction  of  all  the  penal  evils  to  which  men 
are  subjected.  The  great  fact  in  the  apostle's  mind  was,  that 
God  regards  and  treats  all  men,  from  the  first  moment  of  their 
existence,  as  out  of  fellowship  with  himself,  as  having  forfeited 
his  favour.  Instead  of  entering  into  communion  with  them  the 
moment  they  begin  to  exist  (as  he  did  with  Adam,)  and  forming 
them  by  his  Spirit  in  his  own  moral  image,  he  regards  them  as 
out  of  his  favour,  and  withholds  the  influences  of  the  Spirit. 
Why  is  this  ?  Why  does  God  thus  deal  with  the  human  race  ? 
The  fact  that  he  does  thus  deal  with  them  is  not  denied  by  any 
except  Pelagians.  Why  then  is  it  ?  Here  is  a  form  of  death 
which  the  violation  of  the  law  of  Moses,  the  transgression  of  the 
law  of  nature,  the  existence  of  innate  depravity,  separately  or 
combined,  are  insufiicient  to  account  for.  Its  infliction  is  ante- 
cedent to  them  all ;  and  yet  it  is  of  all  evils  the  essence  and  the* 
sum.  Men  begin  to  exist  out  of  communion  with  God.  This  is 
the  fact  which  no  sophistry  can  get  out  of  the  Bible  or  the  his- 
tory of  the  world.  Paul  tells  us  why  it  is.  It  is  because  we 
fell  in  Adam ;  it  is  for  the  one  ofi"ence  of  one  man  that  all  thus 
die.  The  covenant  being  formed  with  Adam,  not  only  for  him- 
self, but  also  for  his  posterity,  (in  other  words,  Adam  having 
been  placed  on  trial,  not  for  himself  only,  but  also  for  his  race,) 
his  act  was,  in  virtue  of  this  relation,  regarded  as  our  act ;  God 
withdrew  from  us  as  he  did  from  him ;  in  consequence  of  this 
withdrawing,  we  begin  to  exist  in  moral  darkness,  destitute  of  a 
disposition  to  delight  in  God,  and  prone  to  delight  in  ourselves 
and  the  world.  The  sin  of  Adam,  therefore,  ruined  us ;  it  was 
the  ground  of  the  withdrawing  of  the  divine  favour  from  the 
whole  race ;  and  the  intervention  of  the  Son  of  God  for  our  sal- 
vation is  an  act  of  pure,  sovereign,  and  wonderful  grace. 

Whatever  obscurity,  therefore,  rests  upon  this  passage,  arises 
from  taking  the  word  death  in  the  narrow  sense  in  which  it  is 
commonly  used  among  men.  If  taken  in  its  scriptural  sense,  the 
whole  argument  is  plain  and  conclusive.  Let  penal  evil  be  sub- 
stituted for  the  word  death,  and  the  argument  will  stand  thus : 
'All  men  are  subject  to  penal  evils  on  account  of  one  man ;  this 
is  the  position  to  be  proved,  ver.  12.  That  such  is  the  case  is 
evident,  because  the  infliction  of  a  penalty  supposes  the  viola- 
tion of  law.    But  such  evil  was  inflicted  before  the  giving  of  the 


ROMANS  V.  13,  14.  245 

Mosaic  law ;  it  comes  on  men  before  the  transgression  of  the 
law  of  nature,  or  even  the  existence  of  inherent  depravity ;  it 
must  therefore  be  for  the  offence  of  one  man  that  judgment  has 
come  upon  all  men  to  condemnation.'  The  wide  sense  in  which 
the  sacred  writers  use  the  word  death,  accounts  for  the  fact  that 
the  dissolution  of  the  body  (which  is  one  form  of  the  manifesta- 
tion of  the  divine  displeasure)  is  not  only  included  in  it,  but  is 
often  the  prominent  idea. 

Until  the  law.  The  law  here  mentioned  is  evidently  the  law 
of  Moses.  The  word  d-ji^pt  is  properly  rendered  until,  and  not 
during  the  continuance  of,  a  sense  which  the  particle  has  in 
some  passages.  Until  the  law  is  immediately  explained  by  the 
words  from  Adam  to  Moses.  Sin  was  in  the  world,  i.  e.  men 
were  sinners,  and  were  so  regarded  and  treated.  Sin  is  not 
imputed,  that  is,  it  is  not  laid  to  one's  account,  and  punished. 
See  iv.  8,  "Blessed  is  the  man  to  whom  the  Lord  imputeth 
not  iniquity;"  and  the  familiar  equivalent  expressions,  "His 
iniquity  shall  be  upon  him,"  Numb.  xv.  31;  and,  "He  shall 
bear  his  iniquity."  The  word  (IA^o;'e7rar)  here  used,  occurs 
nowhere  else  in  any  Greek  writer,  except  in  Philemon  18.  The 
common  word  for  impute  is  Xoyc^ufxac.  When  there  is  no  law, 
fXTj  outot:  vofiou,  there  not  being  law.  Sin  is  correlative  of  law. 
If  there  is  no  law,  there  can  be  no  sin,  as  Paul  had  already 
taught,  iv.  15.  But  if  there  is  no  sin  without  law,  there  can  be 
no  imputation  of  sin.  As,  however,  sin  was  imputed,  as  sin 
was  in  the  world,  as  men  were  sinners,  and  were  so  regarded 
and  treated  before  the  law  of  Moses,  it  follows  that  there  must 
be  some  more  comprehensive  law  in  relation  to  which  men  were 
sinners,  and  in  virtue  of  which  they  were  so  regarded  and 
treated.  The  principle  here  advanced,  and  on  which  the  apos- 
tle's argument  rests  is,  that  the  infliction  of  penal  evil  implies 
the  violation  of  law.  If  men  were  sinners,  and  were  treated  as 
such  before  the  law  of  Moses,  it  is  certain  that  there  is  some 
other  law,  for  the  violation  of  which  sin  was  imputed  to  them. 

Instead  of  the  interpretation  just  given,  there  are  several 
other  methods  of  explaining  this  verse,  which  should  be  noticed. 
Calvin,  Luther,  Beza,  and  not  a  few  of  the  modern  commenta- 
tors, say  that  the  clause,  sin  is  not  imputed  when  there  is  no 
law,  means,  men  do  not  impute  sin  to  themselves,  i.  e.  do  not 


246  ROMANS  V.  13,  14. 

regard  themselves  as  sinners ;  do  not  feel  their  guilt,  when  there 
is  no  law.  To  a  certain  extent,  the  sentiment  thus  expressed 
is  true.  Paul,  in  a  subsequent  chapter,  vii.  8,  says,  "Without 
the  law,  sin  was  dead;"  that  is,  unknown  and  disregarded.  It 
is  true,  that  ignorance  of  the  law  renders  the  conscience  torpid, 
and  that  by  the  clear  revelation  of  the  law  it  is  brought  to  life ; 
so  that  by  the  law  is  the  knowledge  of  sin.  If,  however,  by 
law,  is  meant  a  written  law,  or  a  full  and  authenticated  revela- 
tion of  the  will  of  God  as  a  rule  of  duty,  then  it  is  only  com- 
paratively speaking  true,  that  without  law  (i.  e.  such  a  law,)  sin 
is  unknown  or  disregarded.  There  is  another  law,  as  Paul 
teaches,  ii.  14,  15,  written  on  the  heart,  in  virtue  of  which  men 
feel  themselves  to  be  sinners,  and  know  the  righteous  judgment 
of  God,  by  which  they  are  exposed  to  death ;  see  i.  32.  The 
objections,  however,  to  this  interpretation  are  decisive :  1.  In 
the  first  place,  it  is  inconsistent  with  the  meaning  of  the  words 
here  used.  "To  impute  sin"  never  means  to  lay  sin  to  heart. 
The  imputation  is  always  made  from  without,  or  by  another,  not 
by  the  sinner  himself.  Tholuck,  therefore,  calls  this  interpreta- 
tion "a  desperate  shift."  "Noch,"  he  says,  "ist  eine  gewalt- 
same  Hiilfe  zu  erwahnen  die  Manche  diesem  Aussprliche  des 
Apostels  zu  bringen  gesucht  haben.  Sie  haben  dem  iXXoyftv 
eine  andere  Bedeutung  beigelegt.  Sie  haben  es  in  der  Bedeu- 
tung  achten,  RiicTcsicht  nehmen  genommen."  2.  This  interpre- 
tation proceeds  on  a  wrong  assumption  of  the  thing  to  be 
proved.  It  assumes  that  the  apostle  designs  to  prove  that  all 
men  are  in  themselves  sinners,  and  for  their  personal  guilt  or 
defilement,  are  exposed  to  death.  But  this,  as  has  been  shown, 
leaves  out  of  view  the  main  idea  of  ver.  12.  It  is  true,  that  all 
men  are  sinners,  either  in  the  sense  of  actual  transgressors,  or 
of  having  a  depraved  nature,  and  consequently  are  exposed  to 
death;  but  the  specific  assertion  of  ver.  12  is,  that  it  was  by 
ONE  MAN  death  passed  on  all  men.  This,  therefore,  is  the  thing 
to  be  proved,  and  not  that  all  men  are  personally  sinners.  Of 
course  it  is  not  denied  that  men  are  subject  to  death  for  their 
own  sins ;  but  that  is  nothing  to  the  point  which  the  apostle  has 
in  hand.  His  design  is  to  show  that  there  is  a  form  of  death, 
or  penal  evil,  to  which  men  are  subject,  anterior  to  any  personal 
transgression  or  inherent  corruption.     3.  This   interpretation 


ROMANS  V.  13,  14.  247 


assumes  that  the  apostle  is  answering  an  objection  which  has 
no  force,  or  refuting  an  opinion  which  no  one  entertained.  It 
supposes  that  the  Jews  held  that  the  Gentiles,  before  the  law 
of  Moses,  were  not  sinners,  whereas  they  regarded  them  as  pre- 
eminently such.  It  makes  the  apostle  reason  thus :  'All  men 
are  sinners.  No,'  objects  the  Jew,  'before  Moses  there  was  no 
law,  and  therefore  no  sin.  Yes,'  replies  Paul,  'they  were  sin- 
ners, although  they  were  not  aware  of  it.'  But  as  no  human 
being  believed  that  men  were  not  sinners  before  the  giving  of 
the  Mosaic  law,  as  Paul  himself  had  proved  at  length  that  the 
whole  world  was  guilty  before  God,  as  he  had  expressly  taught 
that  the  Gentiles,  although  they  had  no  written  law,  were  a  law 
unto  themselves,  and  that  they  stood  self-condemned  in  the  pre- 
sence of  God,  it  is  unreasonable  to  suppose  that  the  apostle 
would  stop  to  refute  an  objection  which  has  not  force  enough  to 
be  even  a  cavil.  Paul  had  before  laid  down  the  principle 
(iv.  15,)  that  where  there  is  no  law,  there  is  no  transgression, 
which  is  only  another  form  of  saying,  "sin  is  not  imputed 
when  there  is  no  law."  But  as  sin  was  imputed  before  the  law 
of  Moses,  there  must  have  been  some  other  law,  for  the  violation 
of  which  men  were  condemned.  It  is  that  the  apostle  designs 
to  prove,  and  not  that  men  were  personally  sinners ;  a  fact,  so 
far  as  the  heathen  were  concerned,  no  Jew  denied. 

Another  interpretation,  which  is  adopted  by  a  large  number 
of  commentators  and  theologians,  supposes  that  the  word  death 
is  to  be  understood  of  natural  death  alone.  The  reasoning  of 
the  apostle  then  is,  'As  on  account  of  the  sin  of  one  man,  all 
men  are  condemned  to  die,  so  on  account  of  the  righteousness 
of  one,  all  are  made  partakers  of  life,'  ver.  12.  The  proof  that 
all  are  subject  to  death  on  account  of  the  sin  of  Adam,  is  given 
in  vs.  13,  14 :  '  The  infliction  of  the  specific  penalty  of  death, 
supposes  the  violation  of  a  law  to  which  that  particular  penalty 
was  attached.  This  could  not  be  the  law  of  Moses,  since  those 
die  who  never  violated  that  law;  and,  in  short,  all  men  die, 
although  they  have  never  broken  any  express  command  attended 
by  the  sanction  of  death.  The  liability  of  all  men,  therefore,  to 
this  specific  form  of  evil,  is  to  be  traced  not  to  their  own  indi- 
vidual character  or  conduct,  but  to  the  sin  of  Adam.'  Some  of 
those  who  adopt  this  view  of  the  passage,  are  consistent  enough 


248  ROMANS  V.  13. 

to  carry  it  through,  and  make  the  life  which  is  restored  to  all 
by  Christ,  as  here  spoken  of,  to  be  nothing  more  than  the  life 
of  the  body,  i.  e.  the  resurrection  from  the  dead.*  It  will  be 
observed,  that  this  interpretation  is,  as  to  its  main  principle, 
identical  with  that  presented  above  as  correct.  That  is,  it 
assumes  that  ver.  12  teaches  that  God  regarded  the  act  of  Adam 
as  the  act  of  the  whole  race,  or,  in  other  words,  that  he  sub- 
jected all  men  to  punishment  on  account  of  his  transgression. 
And  it  makes  vs.  13,  14,  the  proof  that  the  subjection  of  all 
men  to  the  penal  evil  here  specially  in  view,  to  be,  not  the  cor- 
ruption of  their  nature,  nor  their  own  individual  sins,  but  the 
sin  of  Adam.  It  is,  however,  founded  on  two  assumptions  ;  the 
one  of  which  is  erroneous,  and  the  other  gratuitous.  In  the 
first  place,  it  assumes  that  the  death  here  spoken  of  is  mere 
natural  death,  which,  as  shown  above,  is  contrary  both  to  the 
scriptural  use  of  the  term  and  to  the  immediate  context.  And, 
secondly,  it  assumes  that  the  violation  of  the  law  of  nature 
could  not  be  justly  followed  by  the  death  of  the  body,  because 
that  particular  form  of  evil  was  not  threatened  as  the  sanction 
of  that  law.  But  this  assumption  is  gratuitous,  and  would  be 
as  well  authorized  if  made  in  reference  to  any  othei  punishment 
of  such  transgressions;  since  no  definite  specific  evil,  as  the 
expression  of  the  divine  displeasure,  was  made  known  to  those 
who  had  no  external  revelation.  Yet,  as  Paul  says,  Rom.  i.  32, 
the  wicked  heathen  knew  they  were  worthy  of  death,  i.  e.  of  the 
efiects  of  the  divine  displeasure.  The  particular  manner  of  the 
exhibition  of  that  displeasure  is  a  matter  of  indifierence.  It 
need  hardly  be  remarked,  that  it  is  not  involved  either  in  this 
or  the  commonly  received  interpretation  of  this  passage,  that 
men,  before  the  time  of  Moses,  were  not  punishable  for  their 
own  sins.  While  this  is  admitted  and  asserted  by  the  apostle, 
he  proves  that  they  were  punished  for  Adam's  sin.  No  one 
feels  that  there  is  any  inconsistency  in  asserting  of  the  men  of 
this  generation,  that  although  responsible  to  God  for  their  per- 
sonal transgressions,  they  are  nevertheless  born  in  a  state 
of  spiritual  death,  as  a  punishment  of  the  sin  of  our  great 
progenitor.  The  pains  of  child-birth  do  not  cease  to  be  part 
of  the  penalty  of  the   original   transgression,   although  each 

*  See  WMtby  on  this  passage. 


ROMANS  V.  13.  249 

suffering  mother  is  burdened  with  the  guilt  of  personal  trans-  / 
gression.  >^ 

As  the  effort  to  make  these  verses  prove  that  all  men  are 
actual  sinners  fails  of  giving  them  any  satisfactory  sense,  so 
the  interpretation  which  assumes  that  they  are  designed  to 
prove  inherent,  hereditary  depravity,  is  no  less  untenable.  If 
if  (p  7:duze<:  -/jfiapvov,  in  ver.  12,  means,  '  Death  has  passed  on 
all,  because  all  are  tainted  with  the  hereditary  corruption  derived 
from  Adam,'  then  the  argument  in  vs.  13,  14,  must  stand  thus: 
'All  men  are  by  nature  corrupt,  for  as  sin  is  not  imputed  when 
there  is  no  law,  the  death  of  all  men  cannot  be  accounted  for 
on  the  ground  of  their  actual  sins ;  therefore,  since  those  die 
who  have  never  sinned,  as  Adam  did,  against  a  positive  law, 
they  must  be  subject  to  death  for  their  innate  depravity.'  But, 
so  far  as  this  argument  assumes  that  men,  before  the  time  of 
Moses,  were  not  justly  subject  to  death  for  their  actual  sins,  it 
is  contrary  to  truth,  and  to  the  express  teaching  of  the  apostle. 
Yet  this  is  the  form  in  which  it  is  generally  presented.  And 
if  it  only  means  that  actual  sin  will  not  account  for  the  absolute 
universality  of  death,  since  those  die  who  have  never  committed 
any  actual  transgression,  the  argument  is  still  defective.  Innate 
depravity  being  universal,  may  account  for  the  universality  of 
natural  death;  but  ^duazo^  includes  much  more  than  natural 
death.  What  is  to  account  for  spiritual  death?  Why  are  men 
born  dead  in  sin  ?  This  is  the  very  thing  to  be  accounted  for. 
The  fact  is  not  its  own  solution.  Paul's  argument  is,  that  they 
are  so  born  on  account  of  Adam's  sin.  It  is  another  objection 
to  this  interpretation,  that  it  destroys  the  analogy  between 
Christ  and  Adam,  and  therefore  is  inconsistent  with  the  great 
design  of  the  whole  passage.  Paul's  object  is  to  show,  that  as 
we  are  justified  by  the  righteousness  of  Christ  as  something  out 
of  ourselves,  so  we  are  condemned  for  the  sin  of  Adam  as  some- 
thing out  of  ourselves.  To  make  him  teach  that  we  are  con- 
demned for  our  inherent  depravity,  to  the  exclusion  of  Adam's 
sin,  necessitates  his  teaching  that  we  are  justified  for  our  inhe- 
rent goodness,  which  destroys  all  hope  of  heaven.  There  is  no 
interpretation  of  this  passage  consistent  with  the  meaning  of  the 
words,  the  nature  of  the  argument,  the  design  of  the  context, 
and  the  analogy  of  Scripture,  but  the  one  given  above,  as 


250  ROMANS  V.  14. 

commonly  received.  Kbllner  complains  that  Paul's  argument 
is  very  confused.  This  he  accounts  for  by  assuming  that  the 
apostle  had  two  theories  in  his  mind.  The  one,  that  men  die 
for  their  own  sins ;  the  other,  that  they  die  for  the  sin  of  Adam. 
His  natural  feelings  led  him  to  adopt  the  former,  and  he  accord- 
ingly says,  in  ver.  12,  "Death  passed  on  all  men,  because  all 
have  sinned."  But  as  the  Jewish  doctrine  of  his  age,  that  men 
were  condemned  for  the  sin  of  Adam,  aflforded  such  an  admira- 
ble illustration  of  his  doctrine  of  salvation  through  the  merit 
of  Christ,  the  apostle,  says  Kollner,  could  not  help  availing 
himself  of  it.  Thus  he  has  the  two  theories  mixed  up  together, 
asserting  sometimes  the  one,  and  sometimes  the  other.  To  those 
who  reverence  the  Scriptures  as  the  word  of  God,  it  is  assuredly 
a  strong  argument  in  favour  of  the  common  interpretation  of 
the  passage,  that  it  saves  the  sacred  writer  from  such  asper- 
sions. It  is  better  to  admit  the  doctrine  of  imputation,  than  to 
make  the  apostle  contradict  himself. 

Verse  14.  Nevertheless,  death  reigned  from  Adam  to  Moses. 
That  is,  men  were  subject  to  death  before  the  law  of  Moses  was 
given,  and  consequently  not  on  account  of  violating  it.  There 
must  be  some  other  ground,  therefore,  of  their  exposure  to 
death.  Neverthelesss,  {d?da,)  the  clause  thus  introduced  stands 
in  opposition  to  the  preceding  clause,  oux  iXXoyeirat.  That  is, 
^although  sin  is  not  imputed  when  there  is  no  law,  nevertheless 
death  reigned  from  Adam  to  Moses.'  Death  reigned,  i.  e.  had 
undisputed,  rightful  sway.  Men  were  justly  subject  to  his 
power,  and  therefore  were  sinners. 

Even  over  them  that  had  not  sinned  after  the  similitude  of 
Adam's  transgression.  Instead  of  connecting  kTil  tw  bfiOKOfjtave, 
as  is  usually  done,  with  /urj  6.[iapTi^aavrt<;,  Chrysostom  connects 
them  with  i^aaiXtoatv.  The  sense  would  then  be,  'death 
reigned  after  the  similitude  of  Adam's  transgression,  even  over 
those  who  had  not  sinned.'  That  is,  death  reigned  over  those 
who  had  not  personally  sinned,  just  as  it  reigned  over  Adam. 
This  interpretation  is  adopted  by  Bcngel,  who  says,  "  Qu6d 
homines  ante  legem  mortui  sunt,  id  accidit  eis  super  similitudine 
transgressionis  Adam,  i.  e.  quia  illorum  eadem  atque  Adami 
transgredientis  ratio  fuit:  mortui  sunt,  propter  alium  reatum, 
non  propter  eum,  quem  ipsi  per  se  contraxere,  id  est,  propter 


ROMANS  V.  14.  251 

reatum  ab  Adamo  contractum."  Although  the  sense  thus 
expressed  is  good,  and  suited  to  the  context,  the  construction 
is  evidently  forced.  It  is  much  more  natural  to  take  the  words 
as  they  stand.  Death  reigned  over  a  class  of  persons  who  had 
not  sinned  as  Adam  had.  The  question  is,  What  is  the  point 
of  dissimilarity  to  which  the  apostle  here  refers  ?  Some  say  it 
is,  that  Adam  violated  a  positive  command  to  which  the  sanction 
of  death  was  expressly  added,  and  that  those  referred  to  did 
not.  The  principal  objections  to  this  interpretation  are,  1.  That 
it  destroys  the  distinction  between  the  two  classes  of  persons 
here  alluded  to.  It  makes  Paul,  in  effect,  reason  thus :  '  Death 
reigned  over  those  who  had  not  violated  any  positive  law,  even 
over  those  who  had  not  violated  any  positive  law.'  It  is  obvi- 
ous that  the  first  clause  of  the  verse  describes  a  general  class, 
and  the  second  clause,  which  is  distinguished  from  the  first  by 
the  word  even,  only  a  portion  of  that  class.  All  men  who  died 
from  Adam  to  Moses,  died  without  violating  a  positive  com- 
mand. The  class,  therefore,  which  is  distinguished  from  them, 
must  be  contrasted  with  Adam  on  some  other  ground  than  that 
which  is  common  to  the  whole.  2.  This  interpretation  is  incon- 
sistent with  the  context,  because  it  involves  us  in  all  the  diffi- 
culties specified  above,  attending  the  sense  which  it  requires 
us  to  put  upon  vs.  13,  14,  and  their  connection  with  ver.  12. 
We  must  suppose  these  verses  designed  to  prove  that  all  men 
are  sinners,  which,  as  just  shown,  is  at  variance  with  the  con- 
text, with  the  obvious  meaning  of  ver.  12,  with  the  scope  of  the 
passage,  and  the  drift  of  the  argument.  Or  we  must  adopt  the 
interpretation  of  those  who  confine  the  word  death  to  the  dis- 
solution of  the  body,  and  make  the  apostle  argue  to  show  that 
this  particular  evil  is  to  be  referred  not  to  the  personal  sins  of 
men,  but  to  the  sin  of  Adam.  Or  we  are  driven  to  some  other 
unsatisfactory  view  of  the  passage.  In  short,  these  verses,  when 
the  clause  in  question  is  thus  explained,  present  insuperable 
difficulties. 

Others  understand  the  difference  between  Adam  and  those 
intended  to  be  described  in  this  clause,  to  be,  that  Adam  sinned 
personally  and  actually,  the  others  did  not.  In  favour  of  this 
view  it  may  be  argued,  1.  That  the  words  evidently  admit  of  this 
interpretation  as  naturally  as  of  the  other.     Paul  simply  says, 


252  ROMANS  V.  14. 

the  persons  referred  to  did  not  sin  as  Adam  did.  Whether  he 
means  that  they  did  not  sin  at  all ;  that  they  were  not  sinners 
in  the  ordinary  sense  of  that  term ;  or  that  they  had  not  sinned 
against  the  same  kind  of  law,  depends  on  the  context,  and  is 
not  determined  by  the  mere  form  of  expression.  2.  If  ver.  12 
teaches  that  men  are  subject  to  death  on  account  of  the  sin 
of  Adam,  if  this  is  the  doctrine  of  the  whole  passage,  and  if, 
as  is  admitted,  vs.  13,  14  are  designed  to  prove  the  assertion 
of  ver.  12,  then  is  it  necessary  that  the  apostle  should  show 
that  death  comes  on  those  who  have  no  personal  or  actual  sins 
to  answer  for.  This  he  does:  'Death  reigns  not  only  over 
those  who  have  never  broken  any  positive  law,  but  even  over 
those  who  have  never  sinned  as  Adam  did ;  that  is,  who  have 
never  in  their  own  persons  violated  any  law,  by  which  their 
exposure  to  death  can  be  accounted  for.'  All  the  arguments, 
therefore,  which  go  to  establish  the  interpretation  given  above 
of  ver.  12,  or  the  correctness  of  the  exhibition  of  the  course 
of  the  apostle's  argument,  and  the  design  of  the  whole  passage, 
bear  with  all  their  force  in  support  of  the  view  here  given  of 
this  clause.  The  opposite  interpretation,  as  was  attempted  to 
be  proved  above,  rests  on  a  false  exegesis  of  ver.  12,  and  a  false 
view  of  the  context.  Almost  all  the  objections  to  this  interpre- 
tation, being  founded  on  misapprehension,  are  answered  by  the 
mere  statement  of  the  case.  The  simple  doctrine  and  argument 
of  the  apostle  is,  that  there  are  penal  evils  which  come 
UPON  men  antecedent  to  any  transgressions  op  their 
own;  and  as  the  infliction  op  these  evils  implies  a 
violation  of  law,  it  follows  that  they  are  regarded 
and  treated  as  sinners,  on  the  ground  of  the  disobedi- 
ENCE OF  ANOTHER.  In  Other  words,  it  was  "by  the  offence 
of  one  man  that  judgment  came  on  all  men  to  condemnation." 
It  is  of  course  not  implied  in  this  statement  or  argument,  that 
men  are  not  now,  or  were  not  from  Adam  to  Moses,  punishable 
for  their  own  sins,  but  simply  that  they  are  subject  to  penal 
evils,  which  cannot  be  accounted  for  on  the  ground  of  their 
personal  transgressions,  or  their  hereditary  depravity.  This 
statement,  which  contains  the  whole  doctrine  of  imputation,  is  so 
obviously  contained  in  the  argument  of  the  apostle,  and  stands 
out  so  conspicuously  in  the  Bible,  and  is  so  fully  established  by 


ROMANS  V.  14.  253 

the  history  of  the  world,  that  it  is  frequently  and  freely  ad- 
mitted by  the  great  majority  of  commentators. 

WTio  is  a  figure  of  him  that  was  to  com.e,  tutto^  to6  fisXXovroQ. 
ITco!;  TUTCot;;  ipijacv  ore  mantp  ixecvo(;  rose  £^  aoTOO,  xaizoiye  [xyj 
<paydbaiv  dnb  zoo  ^oXou,  yeyovev  cuvcoi;  d^avdroo  too  did  ri^v 
^fuoacv  ectra'^deuTOf,  ourco  xac  b  Xpcazo^  zol^  if  auzou,  xaizocye 
oh  dcxoionpayrjaaae,  yiyovs  Tzpo^svoQ  dtxacoauvrjQ,  tjv  dcd  rob 
ozaupoT)  Tzaaiv  ^plv  kyapiaazo'  dtd  zouzo  duco  xac  xdzio  zoo  Ivoc 
i'^ezac,  xac  ffovej^to^  zdbzo  £c<;  fiiaov  tpepst. — Chrysostom.  "  How 
a  type?  he  says:  because  as  he  was  the  cause  of  the  death 
introduced  by  eating  (the  forbidden  fruit,)  to  all  who  are  of 
him,  although  they  did  not  eat  of  the  tree ;  so  also  Christ,  to 
those  who  are  of  him,  though  they  have  not  wrought  right- 
eousness, is  become  the  procurer  of  the  righteousness  which, 
by  means  of  the  cross,  he  graciously  gives  to  us  all ;  on  this 
account  he  first  and  last  makes  the  one  so  prominent,  continu- 
ally bi'inging  it  forward."  This  is  an  interesting  passage 
coming  from  a  source  so  different  from  the  Augustinian  school 
of  theology.  Every  essential  point  of  the  common  Calvinistic 
interpretation  is  fully  stated.  Adam  is  the  cause  of  death 
coming  on  all,  independently  of  any  transgressions  of  their 
own ;  as  Christ  is  the  author  of  justification  without  our  own 
works.  And  the  many,  in  the  one  clause,  are  all  who  are  of 
Adam ;  and  the  many,  in  the  other,  those  who  are  of  Christ. 

The  word  rendered  figure,  zmoi;,  from  zu-kzco  [to  strike,) 
means  a  print,  or  impression  made  by  a  blow;  as  in  John 
XX.  25,  zbv  zbnov  z<hv  ^Xcov,  the  print  of  the  nails.  In  a  wider 
sense  it  means  a  figure  or  form,  literally,  as  when  spoken  of  an 
image,  Acts  vii.  43,  or  figuratively  when  used  of  a  doctrine, 
Rom.  vi.  17.  More  commonly  in  the  Scriptures  it  means  either 
a  model  after  which  anything  is  to  be  made,  Heb.  viii.  5,  or  an 
example  to  be  followed,  Philip,  iii.  17,  "  as  ye  have  us  for  an 
example,"  xa&oj^  i-j^szs  zonov  ^p-di;.  Besides  these,  so  to  speak 
secular  meanings,  it  has  the  religious  sense  of  type,  a  designed 
prefiguration,  or  counterpart,  either  historically,  as  the  pass- 
over  was  a  type  or  significant  commemoration  of  the  passing 
over,  by  the  destroying  angel,  of  the  habitations  of  the  Hebrews 
in  Egypt ;  or  prophetically,  as  the  sacrifices  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment were  types  of  the  great  sacrifice  of  the  Lamb  of  God.     A 


254  ROMANS  V.  14. 

type,  therefore,  in  the  religious  sense  of  the  term,  is  not  a  mere 
historical  parallel  or  incidental  resemblance  between  persons  or 
events,  but  a  designed  resemblance — the  one  being  intended  to 
prefigure  or  to  commemorate  the  other.  It  is  in  this  sense  that 
Adam  was  the  type  of  Christ.  The  resemblance  between  them 
was  not  casual.  It  was  predetermined,  an'd  entered  into  the 
whole  plan  of  God.  As  Adam  was  the  head  and  representative 
of  his  race,  whose  destiny  was  suspended  on  his  conduct,  so 
Christ  is  the  head  and  representative  of  his  people.  As  the 
sin  of  the  one  was  the  ground  of  our  condemnation,  so  the 
righteousness  of  the  other  is  the  ground  of  our  justification. 
This  relation  between  Adam  and  the  Messiah  was  recognized  by 
the  Jews,  who  called  their  expected  deliverer,  Ti'iri^n  finistri'  tlie 
last  Adam,  as  Paul  also  calls  him  in  1  Cor.  xv.  45,  6  ia-^arot; 
ASd/jt.  Adam  was  the  type,  too  ixsXXovtoi^,  either  of  the  Adam 
who  was  to  come,  or  simply  of  the  one  to  come.  The  Old  Testa- 
ment system  was  preparatory  and  prophetic.  The  people  under 
its  influence  were  looking  forward  to  the  accomplishment  of  the 
promises  made  to  their  father.  The  Messianic  period  on  which 
their  hopes  were  fixed  was  called  "the  world  or  age  to  come,"  and 
the  Messiah  himself  was  6  i^jfd/zevoc,  6  fxeXXo}v,  the  one  coming.* 
As  Paul  commenced  this  section  with  the  design  of  insti- 
tuting this  comparison  between  Christ  and  Adam,  and  inter- 
rupted himself  to  prove,  in  vs.  13,  14,  that  Adam  was  really  the 
representative  of  his  race,  or  that  all  men  are  subject  to  death 
for  his  offence ;  and  having,  at  the  close  of  ver.  14,  announced 
the  fact  of  this  resemblance  by  calling  Adam  a  type  of  Christ, 
he  again  stops  to  limit  and  explain  this  declaration  by  pointing 
out  the  real  nature  of  the  analogy.  This  he  does  principally 
by  showing,  in  vs.  15 — 17,  the  particulars  in  which  the  com- 

*  Philippi,  Professor  in  the  University  at  Rostock,  one  of  the  most  recent  as 
he  is  one  of  the  best  of  the  German  commentators,  says,  in  a  note  to  this  pas- 
sage, "The  Protestant  Church  had  abundant  scriptural  authority  as  well  as  theo- 
logical reasons  for  their  doctrine  of  the  imputatio  peccati  Adamitici  ad  culpam  et 
poenam,  audits  consequent  ^ecca^wm  originale,  consisting  in  the  habitus  peccandi, 
and  hence  involving  guilt.  It  is  one  of  the  merits  of  Julius  Mailer's  work 
(die  Christliche  Lehre  von  der  SQnde,)  that  he  rejects  the  modern  doctrine, 
that  innate  depravity  or  the  corruption  of  nature  in  man,  consequent  on  the 
fall  of  Adam,  is  simply  an  evil,  so  that  only  voluntary  assent  thereto  is  pro- 
perly of  the  nature  of  sin." 


ROMANS  V.  15.  255 

parison  does  not  hold.  In  verses  18,  19,  which  are  a  resump- 
tion of  the  sentiment  of  ver.  12,  he  states  the  grand  point  of 
their  agreement. 

Verse  15.  But  not  as  the  offence,  so  also  is  the  free  gift.  The 
cases,  although  parallel,  are  not  precisely  alike.  In  the  first 
place,  it  is  far  more  consistent  with  our  views  of  the  character 
of  God,  that  many  should  be  benefitted  by  the  merit  of  one 
man,  than  that  they  should  suffer  for  the  sin  of  one.  If  the 
latter  has  happened,  much  more  may  we  expect  the  former  to 
occur.  The  attentive  reader  of  this  passage  will  perceive  con- 
stantly increasing  evidence  that  the  design  of  the  apostle  is  not 
to  show  that  the  blessings  procured  by  Christ  are  greater  than 
the  evils  caused  by  Adam ;  but  to  illustrate  and  confirm  the 
prominent  doctrine  of  the  epistle,  that  we  are  justified  on  the 
ground  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ.  This  is  obvious  from  the 
sentiment  of  this  verse,  '  If  we  die  for  the  sin  of  Adam,  much 
mo7'e  may  we  live  through  the  righteousness  of  Christ.'  But 
not  as  the  offence,  kc.  'AW  oh^  o)^  to  TTapdnTco/ia,  outo)  mi  to 
fdpiaiia.,  a  singularly  concise  expression,  which  however  the 
context  renders  sufficiently  plain.  Tlapd.7ZT0iiia,  from  r^apaniTZTu) 
(to  fall,)  means  fall,  and  fdpiaixa,  an  act  of  grace,  or  gracious 
gift,  which  is  explained  by  -q  Scoped  in  this  verse,  to  dcopr^fxa  in 
ver.  16,  and  )J  dcopea  ttjz  daoMabvrjz  [the  gift  of  righteousness,) 
in  ver.  17.  The  meaning  therefore  is,  that  '  the  fall  is  not  like 
the  gracious  restoration.'  The  reason  why  the  one  is  not  like 
the  other,  is  stated  in  what  follows,  so  that  ydp  has  its  appropri- 
ate force :  '  They  are  not  alike,  for  if  by  the  offence  of  one  many 
be  dead.'  The  dative  napoKToyiiaTi  expresses  the  ground  or 
reason.  The  offence  of  one  was  the  ground  or  reason  of  the 
many  dying ;  and  as  death  is  a  penalty,  it  must  be  the  judicial 
ground  of  their  death,  which  is  the  very  thing  asserted  in 
ver.  12,  and  proved  in  vs.  13,  14.  Many  he  dead;  the  words 
are  ol  TtoUot  d-nid^avov,  the  many  died,  the  aorist  batk^avov 
cannot  mean  he  dead.  By  the  many  are  intended  all  mankind, 
o\  Ttollol  and  ;r(£vrec  being  interchanged  throughout  the  con- 
text. They  are  called  the  many,  because  they  are  many,  and 
for  the  sake  of  the  antithesis  to  the  one.  The  many  died  for 
the  offence  of  one ;  the  sentence  of  death  passed  on  all  for  his 
offence.     The  same  idea  is  presented  in  1  Cor.  xv.  22. 


256  ROMANS  V.  15. 

It  is  here,  therefore,  expressly  asserted  that  the  sin  of  Adam 
was  the  cause  of  all  his  posterity  being  subjected  to  death,  that 
is,  to  penal  evil.  But  it  may  still  be  asked  whether  it  was 
the  occasional  or  the  immediate  cause.  That  is,  whether  the 
apostle  means  to  say  that  the  sin  of  Adam  was  the  occasion  of 
all  men  being  placed  in  such  circumstances  that  they  all  sin, 
and  thus  incur  death ;  or  that  by  being  the  cause  of  the  cor- 
ruption of  their  nature,  it  is  thus  indirectly  the  cause  of  their 
condemnation ;  or  whether  he  is  to  be  understood  as  saying  that 
his  sin  is  the  direct  judicial  ground  or  reason  for  the  infliction 
of  penal  evil.  It  has  been  frequently  said  that  this  is  all 
theory,  philosophy,  system,  &c.  But  any  one  may  see  that  it 
is  a  mere  exegetical  question — what  is  the  meaning  of  a  given 
phrase?  Does  the  dative  here  express  the  occasional  cause,  or 
the  ground  or  reason  of  the  result  attributed  to  the  offence  of 
one  man  ?  It  is  a  mere  question  of  fact ;  the  fact  is  all,  and 
there  is  neither  theory  nor  philosophy  involved  in  the  matter. 
If  Paul  says  that  the  offence  of  one  is  the  ground  and  reason 
of  the  many  being  subject  to  death,  he  says  all  that  the  advo- 
cates of  the  doctrine  of  imputation  say.  That  this  is  the  strict 
exegetical  meaning  of  the  passage,  appears  from  the  following 
reasons :  1.  That  such  may  be  the  force  and  meaning  of  the 
words  as  they  here  stand,  no  one  can  pretend  to  doubt.  That 
is,  no  one  can  deny  that  the  dative  case  can  express  the  ground 
or  reason  as  well  as  the  occasion  of  a  thing.  2.  This  interpre- 
tation is  not  only  possible,  and  in  strict  accordance  with  the 
meaning  of  the  words,  but  it  is  demanded,  in  this  connection, 
by  the  plainest  rules  of  exposition;  because  the  sentiment 
expressed  by  these  words  is  confessedly  the  same  as  that  taught 
in  those  which  follow ;  and  they,  as  will  appear  in  the  sequel, 
will  not  bear  the  opposite  interpretation.  3.  It  is  demanded 
by  the  whole  design  and  drift  of  the  passage.  The  very  point 
of  the  comparison  is,  that  as  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  and 
not  our  own  works,  is  the  ground  of  our  justification,  so  the 
sin  of  Adam,  antecedently  to  any  sins  of  our  own,  is  the 
ground  of  the  infliction  of  certain  penal  evils.  If  the  latter 
be  denied,  the  very  point  of  the  analogy  between  Christ  and 
Adam  is  destroyed.  4.  This  interpretation  is  so  plainly  the 
correct  and  natural  one,   that  it  is,   as  shown  above,  freely 


ROMANS  V.  16.  257 

admitted  by  the  most  strenuous  opponents  of  the  doctrine  -which 
it  teaches. 

Much  more  the  grace  of  God,  and  the  gift  by  grace,  which  is 
by  one  man,  hath  abounded  unto  many.  Had  Paul  been  studi- 
ous of  uniformity  in  the  structure  of  his  sentences,  this  clause 
would  have  been  differently  worded :  '  If  by  the  offence  of  one 
many  die,  much  more  by  the  free  gift  of  one  shall  many  live.' 
The  meaning  is  the  same.  The  force  of  the  passage  lies  in  the 
words  much  more.  The  idea  is  not  that  the  grace  is  more 
abundant  and  efficacious  than  the  offence  and  its  consequences; 
this  idea  is  expressed  in  ver.  20 ;  but,  '  if  the  one  dispensation 
has  occurred,  much  more  may  the  other;  if  we  die  for  one, 
much  more  may  we  live  by  another.'  The  noUw  {xOlXov  does 
not  express  a  higher  degree  of  efficacy,  but  of  evidence  or  cer- 
tainty :  '  If  the  one  thing  has  happened,  much  more  certainly 
may  the  other  be  relied  upon.'  The  first  clause  of  the  verse 
may  be  thus  interpreted,  'the  grace  of  God,  even  the  gift  by 
grace ;'  so  that  the  latter  phrase  is  "explanatory  of  the  former. 
If  they  are  to  be  distinguished,  the  first  refers  to  the  cause,  viz. 
the  grace  of  God ;  and  the  second  to  the  result,  viz.  the  gift  by 
grace,  i.  e.  the  gracious  or  free  gift,  viz.  the  gift  of  righteous- 
'  ness,  as  explained  in  ver.  17.  Which  is  by  one  man,  Jesus 
Christ;  that  is,  which  comes  to  us  through  Christ.  This  free 
gift  is  of  course  the  opposite  of  what  comes  upon  us  for  the 
sake  of  Adam.  Guilt  and  condemnation  come  from  him ;  right- 
eousness and  consequent  acceptance  from  Jesus  Christ.  What 
is  here  called  the  free  gift  is,  in  ver.  17,  called  the  gift  of  right- 
eousness. Hath  abounded  unto  many,  dc,  roix;  ttoV.o'j^,  unto  th» 
many;  that  is,  has  been  freely  and  abundantly  bestowed  on  the 
many.  Whether  the  many,  in  this  clause,  is  co-extensive 
numerically  with  the  many  in  the  other,  will  be  considered 
under  ver.  18. 

Verse  16.  And  not  as  it  was  by  one  that  sinned,"^  so  is  the 
gift,  &c.  This  clause,  as  it  stands  in  the  original,  and  not  as 
by  one  that  sinned,  the  gift,  is  obviously  elliptical.  Some  word 
corresponding  to  gift  is  to  be  supplied  in  the  first  member; 

*  Instead  of  a/u^^T^nvrot,  the  MSS.  D.  E.  F.  G.  26,  the  Latin  and  Syriac 
versions  read  a^*gT»jU*Toc.  The  common  text  is  retained  by  most  editors,  even 
by  Lachmann. 

17 


258  ROMANS  V.  16. 

either  offence,  which  is  opposed  to  the/ree  gift  in  the  preceding 
verse;  or  judgment,  which  occurs  in  the  next  clause.  The 
sense  then  is,  '  The  gift  (of  justification,  see  ver.  17)  was  not 
like  the  sentence  which  came  by  one  that  sinned.'  So  Professor 
Stuart,  who  very  appositely  renders  and  explains  the  whole 
verse  thus :  "  Yea,  the  [sentence]  by  one  who  sinned,  is  not  like 
the  free  gift ;  for  the  sentence  by  reason  of  one  [ofience]  was 
unto  condemnation  [was  a  condemning  sentence] ;  but  the  free 
gift  [pardon]  is  of  many  offences,  unto  justification,  i.  e.  is  a 
sentence  of  acquittal  from  condemnation."  The  point  of  this 
verse  is,  that  the  sentence  of  condemnation  which  passed  on  all 
men*  for  the  sake  of  Adam,  was  for  one  offence,  whereas  we 
are  justified  by  Christ  from  many  off"ences.  Christ  does  much 
more  than  remove  the  guilt  and  evils  consequent  on  the  sin 

yof  Adam.  This  is  the  second  particular  in  which  the  work 
of  Christ  diff'ers  from  that  of  Adam. 
For  the  judgment  was  hy  one  to  condemnation.  By  one,  i^ 
Ivoc,  either  by  one  man,  or  by  one  offence.  As  h-fiaprr^aavzoQ 
is  the  true  reading  in  the  preceding  clause,  most  modern  com- 
mentators say  that  Ivoc  must  be  masculine,  by  one  man.  The 
antithesis,  however,  between  kvo^  and  tzoXX&v  is  so  obvious,  that 
it  is  more  natural  to  supply  TtapaTzzcofjiaToc;,  from  the  next  clause, 
as  in  Hebrew  parallelisms,  an  ellipsis  in  the  first  member  must 
at  times  be  supplied  from  the  second.  An  example  of  this  kind 
Gesenius  finds  in  Isa.  xlviii.  11.  Here  the  very  object  of  the 
apostle  is  to  contrast  the  one  offence  for  which  we  suff'er  through 
Adam,  with  the  many  offences  from  the  guilt  of  which  Christ 
delivers  us.  Luther,  Beza,  Olshausen,  Rothe,  and  others,  take 
If 6c  as  neuter,  one  offence.  "A  judgment  to  condemnation"  is 
a  Hebraic  or  Hellenistic  idiom,  for  a  condemnatory  judgment, 
or  sentence  of  condemnation. f  The  word  xp'ifxa,  rendered /w^^^- 
ment,  properly  means  the  decision  or  sentence  of  a  judge,  and 

*  The  words  all  men  are  expressed  in  ver.  18,  where  this  clause  is  repeated: 
"By  the  offence  of  one,  judgment  came  on  all  men  to  condemnation." 

f  See  1  Cor.  xv.  45,  'The  first  Adam  was  made  («(t  4''^'"'  f"'<^*'')  'o  *  living 
soul.'  'The  last  Adam  to  a  quickening  spirit.'  Or  the  preposition  (sic)  may- 
express  the  grade  or  point  to  which  anything  reaches,  and  iU  mtraK^i/uft  be  equi- 
valent to  tk  TO  jtctTOKgiW^d/,  a  sentence  unto  condemnation;  a  decision  which 
went  to  the  extent  of  condemning.  So,  in  the  next  clause,  tU  iuxtai/jut,  unto 
justification,  a  sentence  by  which  men  are  justified. — See  Wahl,  p.  428. 


ROMANS  V.  16.  259 

is  here  to  be  taken  in  its  usual  and  obvious  signification.  It  is 
then  plainly  stated  that  '  a  sentence  of  condemnation  has  passed 
on  all  men  on  account  of  the  one  sin  of  Adam.'  This  is  one 
of  the  clauses  which  can  hardly  be  forced  into  the  meaning 
that  the  sin  of  Adam  was  the  occasion  merely  of  men  being 
condemned,  because  it  was  the  means  of  their  being  led  into 
sin.  Here  again  we  have  a  mere  exegetical  question  to  decide ; 
not  a  matter  of  theory  or  deduction,  but  simply  of  exposition. 
What  does  the  phrase  '  a  sentence  of  condemnation  by,  or  for 
one  oflFence,'  in  this  connection,  mean?  The  common  answer 
to  this  question  is,  It  means  that  the  one  oflFence  was  the  ground 
of  the  sentence.  This  answer,  for  the  following  reasons,  appears 
to  be  correct :  1.  It  is  the  simple  and  obvious  meaning  of  the 
terms.  To  say  a  sentence  is  for  an  offence,  is,  in  ordinary  lan- 
guage, to  say  that  it  is  on  account  of  the  oflFence ;  and  not  that 
the  oflFence  is  the  cause  of  something  else,  which  is  the  ground 
of  the  sentence.  Who,  uninfluenced  by  theological  prejudice, 
would  imagine  that  the  apostle,  when  he  says  that  condemna- 
tion for  the  oflFence  of  one  man  has  passed  on  all  men,  means 
that  the  sin  of  Adam  was  the  occasion  of  our  sins,  on  account 
of  which  we  are  condemned  ?  The  preposition  [ix),  here  trans- 
lated b^,  expresses  properly  the  idea  of  the  origin  of  one  thing 
from  another;  and  is,  therefore,  used  to  indicate  almost  any 
relation  in  which  a  cause  may  stand  to  an  eflFect.  The  logical 
character  of  this  relation  depends,  of  course,  on  the  nature  of 
the  subject  spoken  of.  In  the  phrases  "  faith  is  by  hearing" 
(If  dxorj(:,)  chap.  x.  17;  "6?/  this  craft  {ix  raOzr^c  r^c  ipxamao) 
we  have  our  wealth,"  Acts  xix.  25;  "our  suflBciency  is  of  God" 
{kx  TOO  deou,)  2  Cor.  iii.  5 ;  and  a  multitude  of  similar  cases,  the 
general  idea  of  causation  is  expressed,  but  its  precise  character 
diflFers  according  to  the  nature  of  the  subject.  In  the  former 
of  these  examples  the  word  indicates  the  instrumental,  in  the 
latter  the  efl&cient  cause.  But  when  it  is  said  that  "a  man  is 
not  justified  by  works"  [i^  £/>r^v,)  Gal.  ii.  16 ;  that  the  purpose 
of  election  "is  not  of  works,"  Rom.  ix.  11;  that  our  salvation 
is  not  "  by  works  of  righteousness  (if  ipycov  riov  iv  bixatoabvrj) 
which  we  have  done,"  Tit.  iii.  5;  and  in  a  hundred  similar 
examples,  the  preposition  expresses  the  ground  or  reason.  We 
are  not  elected,  or  justified,  or  saved  on  account  of  our  works. 


260  ROMANS  V.  16. 

In  like  manner,  when  it  is  said  we  are  condemned  hy,  or  for 
the  offenceof  one,  and  that  we  are  justified  for  the  righteous- 
ness of  another,  the  meaning  obviously  is,  that  it  is  on  account 
of  the  offence  we  are  condemned,  and  on  account  of  the  right- 
eousness we  are  justified.  If  it  is  true,  therefore,  as  is  so  often 
asserted,  that  the  apostle  here,  and  throughout  this  passage, 
states  the  fact  merely  that  the  offence  of  Adam  has  led  to  our 
condemnation,  without  explaining  the  mode  in  which  it  has  pro- 
duced this  result,  it  must  be  because  language  cannot  express 
the  idea.  The  truth  is,  however,  that  when  he  says  "  the  sen- 
tence was  by  one  offence"  [to  xpifia  i^  Ivoc,)  he  expresses  the 
mode  of  our  condemnation  just  as  clearly  as  he  denies  one  mqde 
of  justification  by  saying  it  "is  not  by  works;"  and  as  he 
affirms  another  by  saying  it  is  "by  the  righteousness  of  Christ." 
2.  This  interpretation  is  not  only  the  simple  and  natural  mean- 
ing of  the  words  in  themselves  considered,  but  is  rendered 
necessary  by  the  context.  We  have,  in  this  verse,  the  idea  of 
pardon  on  the  one  hand,  which  supposes  that  of  condemnation 
on  the  other.  If  the  latter  clause  of  the  verse  means,  as  is 
admitted,  that  we  are  pardoned  for  many  offences,  the  former 
must  mean  that  we  are  condemned  for  one.  3.  The  whole 
force  of  the  contrast  lies  in  this  very  idea.  The  antithesis  in 
this  verse  is  evidently  between  the  one  offence  and  the  many 
offences.  To  make  Paul  say  that  the  offence  of  Adam  was  the 
means  of  involving  us  in  a  multitude  of  crimes,  from  all  of 
which  Christ  saves  us,  is  to  make  the  evil  and  the  benefit 
exactly  tantamount :  'Adam  leads  us  into  offences  from  which 
Christ  delivers  us.'  Here  is  no  contrast  and  no  superiority. 
Paul,  however,  evidently  means  to  assert  that  the  evil  from 
which  Christ  saves  us,  is  far  greater  than  that  which  Adam  has 
brought  upon  us.  According  to  the  simple  and  natural  inter- 
pretation of  the  verse,  this  idea  is  retained :  'Adam  brought  the 
condemnation  of  one  offence  only ;  Christ  saves  us  from  that 
oi  many.'  4.  Add  to  these  considerations  the  obvious  meaning 
of  the  corresponding  clauses  in  the  other  verses,  especially  in 
ver.  19,  and  the  design  of  the  apostle  in  the  whole  passage,  so 
often  referred  to,  and  it  seems  scarcely  possible  to  resist  the 
evidence  in  favour  of  this  view  of  the  passage.  5.  This  inter- 
pretation is  80  clearly  the   correct  one,  that  it  is  conceded 


ROMANS  V.  16.  261 

by  commentators  and  theologians  of  every  shade  of  doctrine. 
"Justly  indeed,"  says  Koppe,  "on  account  of  one  offence, 
many  are  subjected  to  punishment;  but  by  divine  grace  many 
are  freed  from  the  punishment  of  many  offences."  His  own 
words  are,  "Jure  quidem  unius  delicti  causa  poenas  subeunt 
multi;  ex  gratia  vero  divina  a  multorum  poenis  liberantur 
beanturque  multi."  Flatt  says,  '•'-  Kazdxpcfxa  setzt  als  nicht 
nothwendig  eigene  Verschuldung  voraus,  so  wie  das  gegentheil 
dixaccopia  nicht  eigene  dcxacoauvr^  voraussetzt.  Um  einer  einzi- 
gen  SUnde  willen  wurden  alle  dazu  verurtheilt,  den  ^dvaroi;, 
(vs.  15,  17,)  zu  leiden."  That  is,  '  Condemnation  does  not 
necessarily  suppose  personal  transgression,  any  more  than  the 
opposite,  justification,  presupposes  personal  righteousness.  On 
account  of  one  single  sin,  all  are  condemned  to  suffer  death.' 
So  Storr :  "  Damnatio  qua  propter  Adamum  tenemur,  unius 
peccati  causa  damnatio  est."  'The  condemnation  which  we 
suffer  on  account  of  Adam,  is  a  condemnation  on  account  of  one 
sin.'  Whitby  expresses  the  meaning  thus:  "The  judgment  was 
by  one  sin  to  condemnation,  we  being  all  sentenced  to  death  on 
account  of  Adam's  sin." 

The  free  gift  is  of  many  offences  unto  justification;  that  is, 
the  free  gift  is  justification.  Tlie  free  gift,  to  Sk  ^dpiafza,  the 
act  of  grace  is  antithetical  to  xpcpia,  the  judgment;  as  the  clauses 
xpifxa  e/c  xazaxfjcpia  and  y^ipia fxa  d^  otxaicofxa,  {sentence  of  con- 
demnation and  gratuitous  justification,)  are  opposed  to  each 
other.  The  word  dcxaiujiia  is  (i.  32)  righteous  judgment;  here, 
as  antithetical  to  xardxpcixa,  condemnation.  It  means  justifica- 
tion, which  is  a  righteous  judgment,  or  decision  of  a  judge, 
pronouncing  one  to  be  just.  This  interpretation  suits  the  signi- 
fication of  the  word,  and  is  to  be  preferred  to  making  it  mean 
righteousness,  a  sense  which  the  word  has  in  ver.  18,  when 
opposed  to  transgression,  and  interchanged  with  obedience. 
This  justification  is  ix  zzoDmv  TtapairxoiyLdrcDV,  from  many 
offences.  The  relation  indicated  by  ix,  in  the  first  clause, 
where  it  is  said  'the  sentence  was  i^  Ivdc,  for  one  offence,'  is 
slightly  different  from  what  it  is  in  the  second  clause,  where  it 
is  said  justification  is  Ix  tioXXcov  TtapanzcondTajv,  from  many 
offences.  That  is,  sin  stands  in  a  different  relation  to  con- 
demnation from  that  which  it  sustains  to  justification;  both, 


262  ROMANS  V.  17. 

however,  may  be  expressed  by  the  same  preposition.  Christ 
has  done  far  more  than  remove  the  curse  pronounced  on  us  for 
the  one  sin  of  Adam;  he  procures  our  justification  from  our 
own  innumerable  ofi"ences.  This  is  the  main  idea  presented  in 
this  verse. 

Verse  17.  For  if  hy  one  mans  offence,  &c.  The  connection 
of  this  verse,  as  indicated  by  for,  is  with  ver.  16 :  '  We  are  jus- 
tified by  Christ  not  only  from  the  guilt  of  Adam's  first  sin,  but 
from  our  own  innumerable  transgressions ;  for  if  death  reigned 
over  us  for  one  ofience,  much  more  shall  life  reign  through  one 
who  is  none  other  and  no  less  than  Jesus  Christ.'  It  is  doubt- 
ful, however,  whether  this  verse  is  a  mere  amplification  of  the 
idea  of  ver.  15,  which,  in  import  and  structure,  it  so  much 
resembles ;  or  whether  the  stress  is  to  be  laid  on  the  last  clause, 
reigning  in  life;  so  that  the  point  of  the  difi'erence  between 
Adam  and  Christ,  as  here  indicated,  is,  Christ  not  only  delivers 
from  death,  but  bestows  eternal  life;  or,  finally,  whether  the 
emphasis  is  to  be  laid  on  the  word  receive.  The  idea  would 
then  be,  'If  we  are  thus  subject  to  death  for  an  off"ence,  in 
which  we  had  no  personal  concern,  how  much  more  shall  we  be 
saved  by  a  righteousness  which  we  voluntarily  embrace.'  This 
appears  to  be  Calvin's  view,  who  says :  "  Ut  miseria  peccati 
haereditate  potiaris,  satis  est  esse  hominem,  residet  enim  in 
carne  et  sanguine;  ut  Christi  justitia  fruaris,  fidelem  esse 
necessarium  est,  quia  fide  acquiritur  ejus  consortium."  The 
decision  of  these  questions  is  not  at  all  material  to  the  general 
interpretation  of  the  passage.  Both  of  the  ideas  contained  in 
the  two  latter  views  of  the  verse  are  probably  to  be  included. 
By  one  mans  offence,  rep  too  Ivoc  napaTcrcofiari,  hy  the  offence 
of  the  one  (viz.  Adam)  death  reigned,  i.  e.  triumphed  over  all 
men,  by  one.  Here  again  the  dative  TzapaRvcofiarc  has  a  causal 
force,  and  the  assertion  of  the  apostle  is,  that  the  ofi*ence  of 
Adam  was  the  cause  of  death  coming  on  all  men.  His  sin  was 
not  the  cause  of  death  by  any  physical  efficiency;  nor  as  the 
mere  occasion  of  leading  men  to  incur  by  their  own  act  the 
penalty  of  death ;  nor  by  corrupting  the  nature  of  man,  which 
corruption  is  the  ground  of  the  inflicted  curse;  but,  as  is 
asserted  in  the  preceding  verse,  because  his  sin  was  the  gi'ound 
of  the  judicial   condemnation,   rb  xpi[ia   ei<;  xazdxpefxa,  which 


ROMANS  V.  17.  263 

passed  on  all  mankind.  If  that  is  so,  much  more,  says  the 
apostle,  shall  they  which  receive;  be  Xafi^dvovTsq  may  be  taken 
substantively,  the  receivers;  or  the  present  participle,  those 
receiving,  is  used  to  express  the  condition  on  which  the  enjoy- 
ment of  the  blessing  is  suspended.  The  abundance  of  grace, 
the  abounding  grace,  the  grace  which,  in  ver.  15,  is  said 
{^Tcepiaaeuai)  hath  abounded  towards  us.  This  grace  is  the 
unmerited  love  of  God,  which  is  the  source  of  the  gift  of  right- 
eousness,  dojpsa  tyjc;  dtxaioai)vrj<;,  i.  e.  righteousness  is  the  gift 
offered  and  received.  That  righteousness  here  does  not  mean 
holiness,  is  evident  from  the  constant  use  of  the  word  by  Paul 
in  a  different  sense  in  this  epistle;  from  the  fact  that  it  is 
pardon,  justification,  justifying  righteousness,  not  sanctification, 
that  Paul  in  the  context  represents  as  the  blessing  received 
from  Christ;  and  because  it  is  in  this  verse  opposed  to  the 
reigning  of  death,  or  state  of  condemnation  on  account  of  the 
offence  of  Adam.  Professor  Stuart,  therefore,  in  accordance 
with  the  great  majority  of  commentators,  very  correctly  states 
the  sentiment  of  the  verse  thus:  "For  if  all  are  in  a  state  of 
condemnation  by  reason  of  the  offence  of  one,  much  more  shall 
those  towards  whom  abundance  of  mercy  and  pardoning  grace 
are  shown,  be  redeemed  from  a  state  of  condemnation,  and 
advanced  to  a  state  of  happiness."  The  general  sentiment  of 
the  verse  is  thus  correctly  exhibited ;  but  some  of  the  more 
prominent  terms  do  not  appear  to  have  their  full  force  assigned 
to  them.  They  which  receive  the  abundant  grace,  expresses 
more  than  that  this  grace  is  manifested  to  them ;  all  such  do 
not  reign  in  life.  This  phrase  evidently  implies  the  voluntary 
reception  of  the  offered  boon.  The  gift  of  righteousness,  too,  is 
something  more  than  pardoning  grace.  It  is  that  which  is 
expr>issed  in  ver.  15,  by  the  free  gift;  and  in  ver.  16,  by  the 
free  gift  unto  justification.  It  is,  therefore,  the  gift  of  justifica- 
tion ;  or  what  is  but  another  method  of  stating  the  same  idea, 
it  is  the  righteousness  of  Christ  by  which  we  are  justified,  since 
the  gift  of  justification  includes  the  gift  of  Christ's  righteous- 
ness. The  meaning  of  the  verse  consequently  is,  '  If  on  account 
of  the  offence  of  one  man  we  are  condemned,  much  more  shall 
those  who  receive  the  righteousness  graciously  offered  to  them 
in  the  gospel,  not  only  be  delivered  from  condemnation,  but 


264  ROMANS  V.  18. 

also  reign  in  life  by  one,  Jesus  Christ;'  that  is,  be  gloriously 
exalted  in  the  participation  of  that  life  of  holiness  and  com- 
munion with  God  which  is  the  end  of  our  being. 

By  one,  Jesus  Christ.  As  it  was  by  one  man,  antecedently 
to  any  concurrence  of  our  own,  that  we  were  brought  into  a 
state  of  condemnation,  so  it  is  by  one  man,  without  any  merit 
of  our  own,  that  we  are  delivered  from  this  state.  If  the  one 
event  has  happened,  much  more  may  we  expect  the  other  to 
occur.  If  we  are  thus  involved  in  the  condemnation  of  a  sin  in 
which  we  had  no  personal  concern,  much  more  shall  we,  who 
voluntarily  receive  the  gift  of  righteousness,  be  not  only  saved 
from  the  consequences  of  the  fall,  but  be  made  partakers  of 
eternal  life. 

Verse  18.  Therefore,  as  hy  the  offence  of  one,  judgment  came 
on  all  men  to  condemnation;  even  so,  &c.  The  words  dpa  dbv 
(therefore)  are  the  inferential  particles  so  often  used  in  Paul's 
epistles,  at  the  beginning  of  a  sentence,  contrary  to  the  ordinary 
classical  usage — vii.  3,  25,  viii.  12,  ix.  16,  &c.  They  frequently 
serve  to  introduce  a  summation  of  what  had  previously  been 
said.  The  inference  fromjhe  wholejiiscussion,  from  the  begin- 
ning of  the  epistle  to  ver.  12  of  this  chapter,  is  introduced  in 
that  verse  by  8ia  xouxo,  wherefore.  It  followed,  from  all  the 
apostle  had  said  of  the  method  of  justification  through  Jesus 
Christ,  that  there  is  a  striking  ^analogy  between  our  fall  in 
Adam  and  our  restoration  in  Christ.  The  carrying  out  of  this 
comparison  was  interrupted,  in  the  first  place,  to  prove,  in 
vs.  13,  14,  the  position  assumed  in  ver.  12,  that  all  men  are 
subject  to  death  on  account  of  the  sin  of  Adam ;  and,  in  the 
second  place,  to  limit  and  explain  the  analogy  asserted  to  exist 
between  Christ  and  Adam,  at  the  close  of  ver.  14.  This  is 
done  in  vs.  15 — 17.  Having  thus  fortified  and  explained  his 
meaning,  the  apostle  now  states  the  case  in  full.  The  word 
therefore,  at  the  beginning  of  ver.  12,  marks  an  inference 
from  the  whole  doctrine  of  the  epistle;  the  corresponding 
words  here  are  also  strictly  inferential.  It  had  been  proved 
that  we  are  justified  by  the  righteousness  of  one  man,  and  it 
had  also  been  proved  that  we  are  under  condemnation  for  the 
ofi'ence  of  one.  Therefore,  as  we  are  condemned,  even  so  are 
we  justified. 


ROMANS  V.  18.  265 

It  will  be  remarked,  from  the  manner  in  which  they  are 
printed,  that  the  words  judgment  came,  in  the  first  clause  of 
this  verse,  and  the  free  gift  came,  in  the  second,  have  nothing 
to  answer  to  them  in  the  original.  That  they  are  correctly  and 
necessarily  supplied,  is  obvious  from  a  reference  to  ver.  16, 
where  these  elliptical  phrases  occur  in  full.  The  construction 
in  the  clauses  (xpcfia)  eii;  xatdxpcfxa  and  {yapcafxd)  ec<;  3cxaeo)aeu 
^(OTj^,  is  the  same  as  in  ver.  16.  Judgment  unto  condemnation 
is  a  sentence  of  condemnation,  and  the  free  gift  unto  justifica- 
tion is  gratuitous  justification.  The  sentence  is  said  to  be  de' 
ku6(;  TiapaTZTcofxaro^,  through  the  offence  of  one,  and  the  justifica- 
tion is  di  Ivoc  dcxaccbpaTOi;,  through  the  righteousness  of  one. 
In  ver.  16,  this  word  dcxaicopa  is  rendered  justification,  because 
it  is  there  in  antithesis  to  xaTdxpe/ua,  condemnation;  it  is  here 
properly  rendered  righteousness,  because  it  is  in  antithesis  to 
Ttapdnriopa,  offence,  and  because  what  is  here  expressed  by 
oixa'uopa,  is  in  ver.  17  expressed  by  bzaxoij,  obedience.  This 
explanation  is  consistent  with  the  signification  of  the  word 
which  means  a  righteous  thing,  whether  it  be  an  act,  a  judg- 
ment, or  an  ordinance.  In  Rev.  xix.  8,  va  8cxatd)para  zcov 
d.jitov  is  correctly  rendered  the  righteousness  of  the  saints. 
Luther  translates  the  word  in  the  passage  before  us,  gerecht- 
igkeit,  agreeing  with  our  translators.  Calvin  renders  it  justifi- 
catio,  'by  t\\e  justification  of  one.'  In  this  interpretation  many 
of  the  modern  commentators  concur.  The  principal  argument 
for  this  explanation  of  the  word  is,  that  it  is  used  in  that  sense 
in  ver.  16 ;  but  there,  as  just  remarked,  it  is  opposed  to  xazd- 
xpcpa,  condemnation,  while  here  it  is  opposed  to  Ttapdrtzajpia, 
offence.  As  the  word  may  mean  either  justification  or  right- 
eousness, that  sense  should  be  adopted  which  suits  the  immediate 
context.  Many  of  the  older  theologians  render  it  satisfaction; 
according  to  the  Aristotelian  definition,  dixaimpa  to  kTtavop&cofxa 
TOO  doix'/jpazo^.  This  gives  a  good  sense :  '  By  the  satisfaction 
of  one,  the  free  gift  has  come  on  all  men  unto  justification  of 
life.'  But  this,  although  in  accordance  with  the  strict  classical 
use  of  the  word,  is  not  .the  sense  in  which  it  is  used  in  the  Bible, 
and  it  is  not  so  suitable  to  the  context. 

Instead  of  rendering  dc  Ivoc  ■napainibpaxoz,  hy  the  offence  of 
one,  and  bi  Ivo^  bamoipaxoQ,  hy  the  righteousness  of  one,  a  large 


266  KOMANS  V.  18. 

class  of  commentators  render  them,  'by  one  offence,'  and  'by 
one  righteousness.'  This  does  not  materially  alter  the  sense, 
and  it  is  favoured  by  the  absence  of  the  article  before  Ivoc-  In 
vs.  17,  19,  it  is  TOO  Ivoc,  the  one.  In  favour  of  the  version  in 
our  English  translation,  however,  it  may  be  urged:  1.  That 
§v6c,  throughout  the  whole  context  in  vs.  12,  15,  17,  19,  is 
masculine,  except  in  ver.  16,  where  it  is  opposed  to  the  neuter 
tcoX)mv.  The  omission  of  the  article  is  sufficiently  accounted 
for  from  the  fact  that  the  one  intended,  viz.  Adam,  had  been 
before  distinctly  designated.  2.  The  comparison  is  between 
Adam  and  Christ,  rather  than  between  the  sin  of  the  one  and 
the  righteousness  of  the  other.  3.  The  expression,  one  right- 
eousness, is  awkward  and  unusual ;  and  if  Ivoc  dcxauofxazo^  be 
rendered  one  righteous  act,  then  it  is  inappropriate,  inasmuch  as 
we  are  not  justified  by  one  act  of  Christ,  but  by  his  whole  life 
of  obedience  and  suffering.  4.  The  natural  opposition  between 
one  and  all,  requires  svoq  to  be  masculine:  'It  was  by  the 
offence  of  one  man  that  all  men  were  condemned.' 

That  the  apostle  here  again  teaches  that  there  is  a  causal 
relation  between  the  sin  of  Adam  and  the  condemnation  of  his 
race,  cannot  be  denied.  The  only  possible  question  is.  What  is 
the  nature  of  that  relation,  as  expressed  by  dcd  ?  It  was  dc  Ivbq 
TTapanroifiaroi;,  '  hy  the  offence  of  one  that  judgment  came  upon 
all  men.'  Does  this  mean  that  the  offence  of  one  was  simply 
the  occasion  of  all  being  condemned,  or  that  it  was  the  ground 
or  reason  of  their  condemnation  ?  It  is  of  course  admitted  that 
the  proper  force  of  dcd  with  the  genitive  is,  hy  means  of,  and 
with  the  accusative,  on  account  of.  As  the  genitive  and  not  the 
accusative  is  here  used,  it  might  seem  that  the  apostle  design- 
edly avoided  saying  that  all  were  condemned  {dcd  to  Tiapditriofia 
too  Ivo'c)  on  account  of  the  offence  of  one.  But  there  is  no 
necessity  for  departing  from  the  ordinary  force  of  the  preposi- 
tion with  the  genitive,  in  order  to  justify  the  interpretation 
given  above.  The  relation  of  a  means  to  an  end,  depends  on 
the  nature  of  that  means.  To  say  that  condemnation  is  through, 
or  by  means  of  an  offence,  is  to  say  that  the  offence  is  the 
rational  or  judicial  means,  i.  e.  the  ground  of  the  condemnation. 
No  man  doubts  that  when,  in  ver.  12,  the  apostle  says,  that 
death  was  (dcd  tr^i;  d/jLaptca^)  by  means  of  sin,  he  means  that  it 


ROMANS  V.  18.  267 

was  on  account  of  sin.  This  is  not  a  solitary  case.  In  chap, 
iii.  24,  we  are  said  to  be  justified  [dia  r^c  dTToXuvpcoascoi;)  through 
the  redemption  of  Christ,  i.  e.  by  means  of  the  redemption ;  but 
the  ransom  paid  by  Christ,  in  being  the  means,  was  the  ground 
of  our  redemption.  So  in  the  familiar  phrases,  "  through  his 
blood,"  Eph.  i.  7,  Col.  i.  20;  "through  his  death,"  Rom.  v.  10, 
Col.  i.  22;  "by  his  cross,"  Eph.  ii.  16;  "by  the  sacrifice  of 
himself,"  Heb.  ix.  26;  "through  the  offering  of  the  body  of 
Jesus,"  and  in  many  similar  expressions  the  preposition  retains 
its  proper  force  with  the  genitive,  as  indicating  the  means,  and 
yet  the  means,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  is  the  ground  or 
reason.  Thus  also,  in  this  immediate  connection,  we  have  the 
expressions,  "Sj/  the  righteousness  of  one"  all  are  justified,  and 
"^/^  the  obedience  of  one  shall  many  be  made  righteous."  We 
have,  therefore,  in  this  single  passage,  no  less  than  three  cases, 
vs.  12,  18,  1,9,  in  which  this  preposition  with  the  genitive  indi- 
cates such  a  means  to  an  end,  as  the  ground  or  reason  on 
account  of  which  something  is  given  or  performed.  All  this  is 
surely  sufficient  to  prove  that  it  mar/,  in  the  case  before  us, 
express  the  ground  why  the  sentence  of  condemnation  has 
passed  on  all  men.  That  such,  in  this  connection,  must  be  its 
meaning,  appears,  1.  From  the  nature  of  the  subject  spoken  of. 
To  say  that  one  man  has  been  corrupted  by  another,  may 
indeed  express  very  generally,  that  one  was  the  cause  of  the 
corruption  of  the  other,  without  giving  any  information  as  to  the 
mode  in  which  the  result  was  secured.  But  to  say  that  a  man 
was  justified  by  means  of  a  good  action,  or  that  he  was  con- 
demned by  means  of  a  bad  one ;  or  plainer  still,  in  Paul's  own 
language,  that  a  condemnatory  sentence  came  upon  him  by 
means  of  that  action ;  according  to  all  common  rules  of  inter- 
pretation, naturally  means  that  such  action  was  the  reason  of 
the  sentence.  2.  From  the  antithesis.  If  the  phrase,  "by  the 
righteousness  of  one  all  are  justified,"  means,  as  is  admitted, 
that  this  righteousness  is  the  ground  of  our  justification,  the 
opposite  clause,  "by  the  offence  of  one  all  are  condemned," 
must  have  a  similar  meaning.  3.  The  point  of  the  comparison, 
as  frequently  remarked  before,  lies  in  this  very  idea.  The  fact 
that  Adam's  sin  was  the  occasion  of  our  sinning,  and  thus 
incurring  the  Divine  displeasure,  is  no  illustration  of  the  fact 


268  ROMANS  V.  18. 

that  Christ's  righteousness,  and  not  our  own  merit,  is  the  ground 
of  our  acceptance.  There  would  be  some  plausibility  in  this 
interpretation,  if  it  were  the  doctrine  of  the  gospel  that  Christ's 
righteousness  is  the  occasion  of  our  becoming  holy,  and  that  on 
the  ground  of  this  personal  holiness  we  are  justified.  But  this 
not  being  the  case,  the  interpretation  in  question  cannot  be 
adopted  in  consistency  with  the  design  of  the  apostle,  or  the 
common  rules  of  exposition.  4.  This  clause  is  nearly  identical 
with  the  corresponding  one  of  ver.  16,  "  the  judgment  was  by 
one  (offence)  to  condemnation."  But  that  clause,  as  shown 
above,  is  made,  almost  by  common  consent,  to  mean  that  the 
offence  was  the  ground  of  the  condemnatory  sentence.  Such, 
therefore,  must  be  the  meaning  of  the  apostle  in  this  verse; 
compare  also  vs.  15,  17,  19. 

The  second  question  of  importance  respecting  this  verse  is, 
whether  the  all  men  of  the  second  clause  is  co-extensive  with 
the  all  7nen  of  the  first.  Are  the  all  who  are  justified  for  the 
righteousness  of  Christ,  the  all  who  are  condemned  for  the  sin 
of  Adam  ?  In  regard  to  this  point,  it  may  be  remarked,  in  the 
first  place,  that  no  inference  can  be  fairly  drawn  in  favour  of  an 
afl&rmative  answer  to  this  question,  from  the  mere  universality 
of  the  expression.  Nothing  is  more  familiar  to  the  readers  of 
the  Scriptures  than  that  such  universal  terms  are  to  be  limited 
by  the  nature  of  the  subject  or  the  context.  Thus,  John  iii.  24, 
it  is  said  of  Christ,  "all  men  come  to  him;"  John  xii.  32,  Christ 
says,  "I,  if  I  be  lifted  up,  will  draw  all  men  unto  me."  Thus 
the  expressions,  "all  the  world  should  be  taxed,"  "all  Judea," 
"all  Jerusalem,"  must,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  be  limited. 
In  a  multitude  of  cases,  the  words  all,  all  things,  mean  the 
all  spoken  of  in  the  context,  and  not  all,  without  exception; 
see  Eph.  i.  10,  Col.  i.  20,  1  Cor.  xv.  22,  51,  2  Cor.  v.  14,  &c. 
2.  This  limitation  is  always  implied  when  the  Scriptures  else- 
where speak  of  a  necessary  condition  connected  with  the  bless- 
ing to  which  all  are  said  to  attain.  It  is  everywhere  taught 
that  faith  is  necessary  to  justification ;  and,  therefore,  when  it 
is  said  "all  are  justified,"  it  must  mean  all  believers.  "By 
him,"  says  the  apostle,  "aW  that  believe  are  justified  from  all 
things,"  &c.  Acts  xiii.  39.  3.  As  if  to  prevent  the  possibility 
of  mistake,  Paul,  in  ver.  17,  says  it  is  those  who  "  receive  the 


ROMANS  V.  18.  269 

gift  of  righteousness"  that  reign  in  life.  4.  Even  the  all  men, 
in  the  first  clause,  must  be  limited  to  those  descended  from 
Adam  "by  ordinary  generation."  It  is  not  absolutely  all.  The 
man  Christ  Jesus  must  be  excepted.  The  plain  meaning  is,  all 
connected  with  Adam,  and  all  connected  with  Christ.  5.  A 
reference  to  the  similar  passage  in  1  Cor.  xv.  22,  confirms  this 
interpretation,  "As  in  Adam  all  die,  so  in  Christ  shall  all  be 
made  alive ;"  that  is,  shall  be  made  partakers  of  a  glorious  resur- 
rection and  of  eternal  life.  Thus  the  original  word  [^cdotzoctj&tj- 
aovzax)  and  the  context  require  the  latter  clause  of  that  verse 
to  be  understood.  The  all  there  intended  are  immediately  called 
"they  that  are  Christ's,"  ver.  23,  i.  e.  all  connected  with  him, 
and  not  numerically  the  all  that  die  in  Adam.  6.  This  inter- 
pretation is  necessary,  because  it  is  impossible,  with  any  regard 
to  scriptural  usage  or  truth,  to  carry  the  opposite  interpretation 
through.  In  this  whole  passage  there  are  two  classes  of  per- 
sons spoken  of — those  connected  with  Adam,  and  those  con- 
nected with  Christ.  Of  the  former,  it  is  said  "they  die," 
ver.  15;  "they  are  condemned,"  vs.  16,  18;  "they  are  made 
sinners,"  ver.  19,  by  the  offence  of  one  man.  Of  the  latter  it 
is  said,  that  to  them  "  the  grace  of  God  and  the  gift  by  grace 
hath  abounded,"  ver.  15;  that  "they  are  freely  justified  from 
many  offences,"  vs.  16,  18;  that  "they  shall  reign  in  life 
through  Christ  Jesus,"  ver.  17;  that  "they  are  regarded  and 
treated  as  righteous,"  ver.  19.  If  these  things  can  be  said  of 
all  men,  of  impenitent  sinners  and  hardened  reprobates,  what 
remains  to  be  said  of  the  people  of  God  ?  It  is  not  possible  so 
to  eviscerate  these  declarations  as  to  make  them  contain  nothing 
more  than  that  the  chance  of  salvation  is  offered  to  all  men. 
To  say  that  a  man  is  justified,  is  not  to  say  that  he  has  the 
opportunity  of  justifying  himself;  and  to  say  that  a  man  shall 
reign  in  life,  is  not  to  say  he  may  possibly  be  saved.  Who  ever 
announces  to  a  congregation  of  sinners,  that  they  are  all  justi- 
fied, they  are  all  constituted  righteous,  they  all  have  the  justifi- 
cation of  life?  The  interpretation  which  requires  all  these 
strong  and  plain  declarations  to  be  explained  in  a  sense  which 
they  confessedly  have  nowhere  else  in  the  Bible,  and  which 
makes  them  mean  hardly  anything  at  all,  is  at  variance  with 
every  sound  principle  of  construction.     If  the  all  in  the  latter 


270  ROMANS  V.  19. 

» 

part  of  the  verse  is  co-extensive  with  the  all  in  the  former, 
the  passage  of  necessity  teaches  universal  salvation;  for  it  is 
impossible  that  to  he  justified,  constituted  righteous,  can  mean 
simply  that  justification  is  offered  to  all  men.  The  all  who  are 
justified  are  saved.  If  therefore  the  all  means  all  men,  the 
apostle  teaches  that  all  men  are  saved.  And  this  is  the  use  to 
which  many  Universalists  have  put  the  passage.  As,  however, 
not  only  the  Scriptures  generally,  but  Paul  himself,  distinctly 
teach  that  all  men  are  not  to  be  saved,  as  in  2  Tliess.  i.  9,  this 
interpretation  cannot  be  admitted  by  any  who  acknowledge  the 
ins23iration  of  the  Bible.  It  is  moreover  an  unnatural  interpre- 
tation, even  if  the  attention  be  limited  to  this  one  passage ; 
because  as  death  on  account  of  Adam  supposes  union  with 
Adam,  so  life  on  account  of  Christ  supposes  union  with  Christ. 
It  is  all  who  are  in  Adam  who  are  condemned  for  his  oflFence, 
and  the  all  who  are  in  Christ  who  are  justified  by  his  righteous- 
ness. The  modern  German  commentators,  even  those  who  do 
not  hesitate  to  differ  from  the  apostle,  admit  this  to  be  the 
meaning  of  the  passage.  Thus  Meyer  says.  Die  Trcfvrec  du&pcD- 
7T0C  in  the  first  clause,  are  die  gesammtheit  der  Adams-genera- 
tion, and  in  the  second  clause,  die  gesammtheit  der  Ohristus- 
generation.  Philippi  says,  "The  limitation  of  the  ndvrtz 
a.v&po)Tzoe  is  of  necessity  to  be  assumed.  It  can  only  mean  all 
who  believe.  .  .  .  The  apostle  views,  on  the  one  hand,  the  gene- 
ration of  those  lost  in  Adam,  and  on  the  other,  the  generation 
of  those  saved  in  Christ." 

Verse  19.  For  as  hy  one  man's  disobedience  many  were  made 
sinners,  so  hy  the  obedience  of  one  shall  many  he  made  righteous. 
This  verse  presents  the  doctrine  of  the  preceding  one  in  a  some- 
what different  form.  As  in  the  doctrine  of  justification,  there 
are  the  two  ideas  of  the  ascription  of  righteousness,  and  treat- 
ing as  righteous;  and  in  the  doctrine  of  the  fall,  the  ascription 
of  guilt  (legal  responsibility,)  and  the  treating  all  men  as  guilty ; 
so  either  of  these  ideas  is  frequently  presented  more  promi- 
nently than  the  other.  In  ver.  18,  it  is  the  latter,  in  each  case, 
which  is  made  most  conspicuous,  and  in  ver.  19,  the  former.  In 
ver.  18,  it  is  our  being  treated  as  sinners  for  the  sin  of  Adam, 
and  our  being  treated  as  righteous  for  the  righteousness  of 
Christ,  that  is  most  prominently  presented.     In  ver.  19,  on  the 


ROMANS  V.  19.  271 

contrary,  it  is  our  being  regarded  as  sinners  for  the  disobedience 
of  Adam,  and  our  being  regarded  as  righteous  for  the  obedience 
of  Christ,  that  are  rendered  most  conspicuous.  Hence,  Paul 
begins  this  verse  with  for:  'We  are  treated  as  sinners  for  the 
offence  of  Adam,  for  we  are  regarded  as  sinners  on  his 
account,'  &c.  Though  the  one  idea  seems  thus  to  be  the  more 
prominent  in  ver.  18,  and  the  other  in  ver.  19,  yet  it  is  only  a 
greater  degree  of  prominency  to  the  one,  and  not  the  exclusion 
of  the  other,  that  is  in  either  case  intended. 

By  one  marts  disobedience.  The  disobedience  here  is  evidently 
the  first  transgression  of  Adam,  spoken  of  in  ver.  16,  as  the  one 
offence.  The  obedience  of  Christ  here  stands  for  all  his  work 
in  satisfying  the  demands  of  the  law;  his  obedience  unto  and 
in  death ;  that  by  which  the  law  was  magnified  and  rendered 
honourable,  as  well  as  satisfied.  From  its  opposition  to  the 
disobedience  of  Adam,  his  obedience,  strictly  speaking,  rather 
than  his  sufferings,  seems  to  be  the  prominent  idea.  "  Paulus 
unterscheidet  in  dem  Werke  Christi  diese  beiden  Momente,  das 
Thun  und  das  Leiden."  Neander.  'Paul  distinguishes,  in  the 
work  of  Christ,  these  two  elements — doing  and  suffering.' 
CrescMchte  der  Pjianzung,  &c.,  p.  543.  In  the  paragraph 
which  follows  this  statement,  Neander  presents  the  old  distinc- 
tion between  the  active  and  passive  obedience  of  Christ,  very 
nearly  in  its  usual  form.  On  p.  546,  he  says,  "Dies  heilige 
Leben  Christi  will  Gott  als  That  der  ganzen  Menschheit 
betrachten."  'God  regards  the  holy  life  of  Christ  as  the  act 
of  all  men.'  The  words  the  many.,  in  both  clauses  of  this  verse, 
are  obviously  equivalent  to  the  all  of  the  corresponding  clauses 
of  ver.  18,  and  are  to  be  explained  in  the  same  manner. 

The  words  dfiaprcoXoi  xazeaTddfjaav  oi  noXloi,  rendered  "  the 
many  were  made  sinners,"  properly  mean,  were  set  down  in  the 
rank  or  category  of  sinners.  Ka&iarTjfM  never,  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament, means  to  make,  in  the  sense  of  effecting,  or  causing  a 
person  or  thing,  to  be  in  its  character  or  nature  other  than  it 
was  before.  Ka&tazdvat  rcva  S-naprtoXov  does  not  mean  to  make 
one  sinful,  but  to  set  him  down  as  such,  to  regard  or  appoint 
him  to  be  of  that  class.  Thus,  when  Christ  is  said  to  have  been 
"constituted  the  Son  of  God,"  he  was  not  made  Son,  but 
declared  to  be  such:  "Who  constituted  thee  a  ruler  or  judge?" 


272  ROMANS  V.  19. 

i.  e.  Who  appointed  thee  to  that  office  ?  So,  "  Whom  his  lord 
made  ruler."  When,  therefore,  the  apostle  says,  that  the 
many  were  {xazs.aTd&rjaav)  constituted  sinners  by  the  disobedi- 
ence of  Adam,  it  cannot  mean,  that  the  many  thereby  were 
rendered  sinful,  but  that  his  disobedience  was  the  ground  of 
their  being  placed  in  the  category  of  sinners.  It  constituted  a 
good  and  sufficient  reason  for  so  regarding  and  treating  them. 
The  same  remark  applies,  of  course,  to  the  other  clause  of  this 
verse:  dcxacoi  xaza<rTa&:jaouTai  of  noXXoL  This  cannot  mean, 
that  by  the  obedience  of  one  the  many  shall  be  made  holy.  It 
can  only  mean,  that  the  obedience  of  Christ  was  the  ground  on 
which  the  many  are  to  be  placed  in  the  category  of  the  right- 
eous, i.  e.  shall  be  so  regarded  and  treated.  It  is  not  our 
personal  righteousness  which  makes  us  righteous,  but  the 
imputation  of  the  obedience  of  Christ.  And  the  sense  in  which 
we  are  here  declared  to  be  sinners,  is  not  that  we  are  such  per- 
sonally, (which  indeed  is  true,)  but  by  the  imputation  of  Adam's 
disobedience. 

Of  course  the  several  interpretations  above  mentioned  are 
applied  to  this  verse.  1.  That  the  sin  of  Adam  was  the  mere 
occasion  of  other  men  becoming  sinners ;  whether  this  was  by 
the  force  of  example,  or  by  an  unfavourable  change  in  their 
external  circumstances,  or  in  some  other  unexplained  manner, 
being  left  undecided.  2.  That  in  virtue  of  community,  or 
numerical  oneness  of  nature  between  Adam  and  his  posterity, 
his  act  was  strictly  their  act,  and  made  them  sinners  as  it  made 
him  a  sinner.  3.  That  as  the  apostasy  of  Adam  involved  a 
corruption  of  nature,  that  corruption  was  transmitted  to  his 
descendants,  by  the  general  physical  law  of  propagation. 
4.  That  the  sin  of  Adam  was  the  judicial  ground  of  the  con- 
demnation of  his  race.  They  were  by  his  sin  constituted  sin- 
ners in  a  legal  or  forensic  sense ;  as  by  the  righteousness  of 
Christ  we  are  constituted  legally  righteous. 

That  this  last  is  the  true  interpretation,  is  plain,  1.  Because 
it  is  in  accordance  with  usage.  To  w,ahe  clean,  to  make  unclean^ 
to  make  righteous,  to  make  guilty,  are  the  constant  expressions 
for  regarding  and  treating  as  clean,  unclean,  righteous,  or  un- 
righteous. 2.  The  expression,  to  make  sin,  and  to  make  righteous- 
ness, occurring  in  a  corresponding  sense,  illustrate  and  confirm 


ROMANS  V.  19.  273 

this  interpretation.  Thus  in  2  Cor.  v.  21,  Christ  is  said  to  be 
"made  sin,"  i.  e.  regarded  and  treated  as  a  sinner,  "that  we 
mio-ht  be  made  the  righteousness  of  God  in  him,"  i.  e.  that  we 
might  be  regarded  and  treated  as  righteous  in  the  sight  of  God, 
on  his  account.  3.  The  antithesis  is  here  so  plain  as  to  be  of 
itself  decisive.  "To  be  made  righteous"  is,  according  to  Pro- 
fessor Stuart,  "to  be  justified,  pardoned,  regarded  and  treated 
as  righteous."  With  what  show  of  consistency  then  can  it 
be  denied  that  "  to  be  made  sinners,"  in  the  opposite  clause, 
means  to  be  regarded  and  treated  as  sinners  ?  If  one  part  of 
the  verse  speaks  of  justification,  the  other  must  speak  of  con- 
demnation. 4.  As  so  often  before  remarked,  the  analogy 
between  the  case  of  Adam  and  Christ  requires  this  interpreta- 
tion. If  the  first  clause  means  either  that  the  disobedience  of 
Adam  was  the  occasioi!  of  our  committing  sin,  or  that  it  was  the 
cause  of  our  becoming  inherently  corrupt,  and  on  the  ground  of 
these  sins,  or  of  this  corruption,  being  condemned ;  then  must 
the  other  clause  mean  that  the  obedience  of  Christ  is  the  cause 
of  our  becoming  holy,  or  performing  good  works,  on  the  ground 
of  which  we  are  justified.  But  this  confessedly  is  not  the  mean- 
ing of  the  apostle.  If  then  the  same  words,  in  the  same  con- 
nection, and  the  same  grammatical  construction,  have  the  same 
meaning,  the  interpretation  given  above  must  be  correct.  5.  The 
design  of  the  apostle  to  illustrate  the  great  doctrine  of  the 
gospel,  that  men,  although  in  themselves  ungodly,  are  regarded 
and  treated  as  righteous  for  Christ's  sake,  demands  this  inter- 
pretation. 6.  This  view  of  the  passage,  so  obviously  required 
by  the  usage  of  the  words  and  the  context,  is,  as  remarked 
above  on  ver.  16,  adopted  by  commentators  of  every  class,  as 
to  theological  opinion.  See  the  passages  there  quoted.  '■'■The 
many  are  here  again  all,  who,  from  the  opposition  to  the  one, 
are  in  this  place,  as  in  ver.  15,  denominated  from  their  great 
number.  These  have  without  exception  become  sinners  {dfiap- 
TOiXol  •AaTsazd&Yjaav,)  not  in  reference  to  their  own  inward  cor- 
ruption, of  which  Paul  is  not  here  speaking,  but  in  reference  to 
their  guilt  (Strafwiirdigkeit)  and  actual  punishment  on  account 
of  Adam's  sin."*  Even  Flatt,  whose  general  view  of  the  pas- 
sage would  lead  to  a  difi'erent  interpretation,  gives,  as  a  correct 
*  Zacharise,  Biblische  Theologie,  Vol.  II.  p.  388. 

18 


274  ROMANS  V.  19. 

exhibition  of  the  meaning  of  the  apostle,  "As  on  account  of  the 
disobedience  of  one  the  many  are  treated  as  sinners,  so  on 
account  of  the  obedience  of  one  shall  the  many  be  treated  as 
righteous."  Storr  also  renders  the  first  clause,  "They  were 
regarded  and  treated  as  sinners;"  this,  he  says,  must  be  its 
meaning,  from  its  opposition  to  the  words  "were  constituted 
righteous,"  which  obviously  express  the  idea  of  justification, 
and  also  from  the  use  of  the  word  condemnation  in  the  corres- 
ponding clause  of  ver:  18.  These  writers  are  referred  to  rather 
than  Calvinistic  commentators,  to  show  how  entirely  destitute 
of  foundation  is  the  reproach,  that  the  interpretation  given 
above  is  the  result  of  theological  prejudice. 

The  meaning  then  of  the  whole  passage  is  this :  By  one  man 
sin  entered  into  the  world,  or  men  were  brought  to  stand  in  the 
relation  of  sinners  to  God;  death  consequently  passed  on  all, 
because  for  the  ofi"ence  of  that  one  man  they  were  all  regarded 
and  treated  as  sinners.  That  this  is  really  the  case  is  plain, 
because  the  execution  of  the  penalty  of  a  law  cannot  be  more 
extensive  than  its  violation ;  and  consequently,  if  all  are  subject 
to  penal  evils,  all  are  regarded  as  sinners  in  the  sight  of  God. 
This  universality  in  the  infliction  of  penal  evil  cannot  be 
accounted  for  on  the  ground  of  the  violation  of  the  law  of 
Moses,  since  men  were  subject  to  such  evil  before  that  law  was 
given ;  nor  yet  on  account  of  the  violation  of  the  more  general 
law  written  on  the  heart,  since  even  they  are  subject  to  this 
evil,  who  have  never  personally  sinned  at  all.  We  must  con- 
clude, therefore,  that  men  are  regarded  and  treated  as  sinners 
on  account  of  the  sin  of  Adam. 

He  is,  therefore,  a  type  of  Christ.  The  cases,  however,  are 
not  entirely  analogous ;  for  if  it  is  consistent  with  the  Divine 
character,  that  y{Q  should  suffer  for  what  Adam  did,  how  much 
more  may  we  expect  to  be  made  happy  for  Avhat  Christ  has 
done!  Besides,  we  are  condemned  for  one  sin  only,  on  Adam's 
account ;  whereas  Christ  saves  us  not  only  from  the  evils  con- 
sequent on  that  transgression,  but  also  from  the  punishment  of 
our  own  innumerable  ofi"ences.  Now,  if  for  the  ofi"ence  of  one, 
death  thus  triumphs  over  all,  how  much  more  shall  they  who 
receive  the  grace  of  the  gospel,  not  only  be  saved  from  evil,  but 
reign  in  life  through  Christ  Jesus  ! 


ROMANS  V.  19.  275 

Wherefore,  as  on  account  of  one  the  condemnatory  sentence 
has  passed  on  all  the  descendants  of  Adam,  so  on  account  of  the 
righteousness  of  one,  gratuitous  justification  comes  on  all  who 
receive  the  grace  of  Christ ;  for  as  on  account  of  the  disobedi- 
ence of  one  we  are  regarded  as  sinners,  so  on  account  of  the 
obedience  of  the  other  we  are  regarded  as  righteous. 

It  may  be  proper  to  add  a  few  remarks  on  the  preceding 
interpretation  of  this  whole  section.  1.  The  first  is,  that  the 
evidence  of  its  correctness  is  cumulative,  and  is  therefore  not 
to  be  judged  exclusively  by  what  is  said  in  favour  of  the  view 
presented  of  any  one  of  its  parts.  If  it  is  probable  that  ver.  12 
asserts,  that  all  men  became  subject  to  death  on  account  of  one 
man,  this  is  rendered  still  plainer  by  the  drift  and  force  of 
vs.  13,  14 ;  it  is  rendered  almost  certain  by  ver.  15,  where  it  is 
asserted,  that  for  the  "offence  of  one  the  many  die;  by  ver.  16, 
where  it  is  said  that  for  one  offence  all  are  condemned ;  by 
ver.  17,  which  affirms  again,  that  the  ground  of  death's  reigning 
over  all  is  to  be  found  in  this  one  offence ;  and  it  would  appear 
to  be  raised  almost  beyond  the  reach  of  doubt  by  ver.  18,  where 
the  words  of  ver.  16  are  repeated,  and  the  analogy  with  the 
method  of  our  justification  is  expressly  asserted ;  and  by  ver.  19, 
in  which  this  same  idea  is  reiterated  in  a  form  which  seems  to  set 
all  efforts  at  misunderstanding  or  misinterpretation  at  defiance. 

2.  The  force  of  a  remark  previously  made  may  now  be  more 
fully  appreciated,  viz.  that  the  sentiment  attributed  to  ver.  12, 
after  having  been  proved  in  vs.  13,  14,  is  ever  after  assumed  as 
the  ground  of  illustrating  the  nature,  and  confirming  the  cer- 
tainty of  our  justification.  Thus,  in  ver.  16,  for  if  by  the 
offence  of  one  many  be  dead,  &c.;  and  ver.  17,  for  if  by  one 
man's  offence,  &c.;  in  ver.  18,  therefore  as  by  the  offence  of 
one  all  are  condemned,  even  so  by  the  righteousness  of  one  all 
are  justified ;  and,  finally,  in  ver.  19,  FOR  AS  by  one  man's  dis- 
obedience, &c. 

3.  In  connection  with  these  remarks,  it  should  be  remem- 
bered that  the  interpretation  given  to  the  several  clauses  in  this 
passage  is  the  simple  natural  meaning  of  the  words,  as,  with 
scarcely  an  exception,  is  admitted.  The  objections  relied  upon 
against  it  are  almost  exclusively  of  a  theological,  rather  than  a 
philological  or  exegetical  character.     This  interpretation,  too, 


276  ROMANS  V.  19. 

is  perfectly  consistent  with  itself,  harmonious  with  the  design 
of  the  apostle,  and  illustrative  of  the  point  which  he  proposed  to 
explain.  If  all  these  separate  sources  of  proof  be  properly- 
considered  and  brought  to  bear,  with  their  mutually  sustaining 
force,  on  a  candid  mind,  it  can  hardly  fail  to  acknowledge  that 
the  commonly  received  view  of  this  interesting  portion  of  the 
word  of  God,  is  supported  by  an  amount  and  force  of  evidence 
not  easily  overthrown  or  resisted. 

4.  This  interpretation  is  old.  It  appears  in  the  writings  of 
the  early  Christian  fathers ;  it  has  the  sanction,  in  its  essential 
features,  of  the  great  body  of  the  Reformers ;  it  has  commanded 
the  ass6nt  of  men  of  all  parties,  and  of  every  form  of  theolo- 
gical opinion.  The  modern  Rationalist,  certainly  an  impartial 
witness,  who  considers  it  a  melancholy  proof  of  the  apostle's 
subjection  to  Jewish  prejudices,  unites  with  the  devout  and 
humble  Christian  in  its  adoption.  An  interpretation  which  has 
stood  its  ground  so  long  and  so  firmly,  and  which  has  com- 
mended itself  to  minds  so  variously  constituted,  cannot  be  dis- 
missed as  a  relic  of  a  former  age,  or  disparaged  as  the  offspring 
of  theological  speculation. 

5.  Neither  of  the  opposite  interpretations  can  be  consistently 
carried  through.  They  are  equally  at  variance  with  the  design 
of  the  apostle,  and  the  drift  of  his  argument.  They  render  the 
design  and  force  of  vs.  13,  14,  either  nugatory  or  unintelligible. 
They  require  the  utmost  violence  to  be  done  to  the  plainest 
rules  of  exposition ;  and  the  most  unnatural  interpretations  to 
be  given  to  the  most  perspicuous  and  important  declarations  of 
the  apostle.  Witness  the  assertion,  that  "receiving  the  abun- 
dance of  grace  and  gift  of  righteousness,"  means  to  be  brought 
under  a  dispensation  of  mercy ;  and  that  "  to  reign  in  life  by 
one,  Jesus  Christ,"  is  to  be  brought  under  a  dispensation  of  life. 
Thus, 'too,  "the  free  gift  of  justification  of  life  has  come  upon  all 
men,"  is  made  to  mean  that  all  are  in  a  salvable  state ;  and  "  all 
are  constituted  righteous,"  (i.  e.  "justified,  pardoned,  regarded 
and  treated  as  righteous,")  is  only  to  have  the  offer  of  pardon 
made  to  all.  These  are  but  a  tithe  of  the  exegetical  difficulties 
attending  the  other  interpretations  of  this  passage,  which  make 
the  reception  of  either,  the  severest  of  all  sacrifices  to  prejudice 
or  authority. 


ROMANS  V.  20.  277 

Verse  20.  Moreover,  the  law  entered,  that  the  offence  might 
abound,  &c.  Paul,  having  shown  that  our  justification  was 
effected  without  the  intervention  of  either  the  moral  or  Mosaic 
laAv,  was  naturally  led  to  state  the  design  and  effect  of  the 
renewed  revelation  of  the  one,  and  the  superinduction  of  the 
other.  The  law  stands  here  for  the  whole  of  the  Old  Testament 
economy,  including  the  clear  revelation  of  the  moral  law,  and 
all  the  institutions  connected  with  the  former  dispensation. 
The  main  design  and  result  of  this  dispensation,  considered  as 
law,  that  is,  apart  from  the  evangelical  import  of  many  of  its 
parts,  was  Iva  to  napdrrrcofjia  nhovdajj,  that  the  offence  might 
abound.  The  offence  to  Tiaffdrczcofia  is  in  the  context  used  of 
the  specific  offence  of  Adam.  But  it  is  hard  to  see  how  the 
entrance  of  the  law  made  the  offence  of  Adam  to  abound,  unless 
the  idea  is,  that  its  dire  effects  were  rendered  more  abundant. 
It  is  more  probable  that  the  apostle  uses  the  word  in  a  collective 
sense ;  compare  Gal.  iii.  19.  Agreeably  to  this  view,  the  mean- 
ing of  the  clause  is,  that  the  great  design  of  the  law  (in  refer- 
ence to  justification)  is  to  produce  the  knowledge  and  conviction 
of  sin.  Taking  the  word  in  its  usual  sense,  the  meaning  is,  that 
the  result  of  the  introduction  of  the  law  was  the  increase  of 
sin.  This  result  is  to  be  attributed  partly  to  the  fact,  that  by 
enlarging  the  knowledge  of  the  rule  of  duty,  responsibility  was 
proportionably  increased,  according  to  chap.  iv.  15,  and  partly 
to  the  consideration  that  the  enmity  of  the  heart  is  awakened 
by  its  operation,  and  transgressions  actually  multiplied,  agree- 
ably to  chap.  vii.  8.  Both  views  of  the  passage  express  an 
important  truth,  as  the  conviction  of  sin  and  its  incidental 
increase  are  alike  the  result  of  the  operation  of  the  law.  It 
seems,  however,  more  in  accordance  with  the  apostle's  object, 
and  with  the  general,  although  not  uniform  force  of  the  particle 
(:'va)  rendered  that,  to  consider  the  clause  as  expressing  the 
design,  rather  than  the  result  simply  of  the  giving  of  the  law. 
The  word  Tzapecar^X&tu  does  not  mean  simply  entered,  nor 
entered  between,  that  is,  came  between  Adam  and  Christ.  This 
is  indeed  historically  true,  but  it  is  not  the  meaning  of  the 
word,  and  therefore  not  the  idea  which  the  apostle  intended  to 
express.  Nor  does  the  word  mean  here,  as  in  Gal.  ii.  4,  entered 
gurreptitiously,  "crept  in  unawares,"  for  this  is  not  true.     It 


278  ROMANS  V.  21. 

rather  means  entered  thereto^  i.  e.  as  the  same  idea  is  expressed 
in  Gal.  iii.  19,  "it  was  added."  It  was  superinduced  on  a  plan 
already  laid,  and  for  a  subordinate,  although  necessary  purpose. 
It  was  not  intended  to  give  life,  but  to  prepare  men  to  receive 
Christ  as  the  only  source  of  righteousness  and  salvation. 

But  where  sin  abounded,  grace  did  much  more  abound.  That 
is,  great  as  is  the  prevalence  of  sin,  as  seen  and  felt  in  the  light 
of  God's  holy  law,  yet  over  all  this  evil  the  grace  of  the  gospel 
has  abounded.  The  gospel  or  the  grace  of  God  has  proved 
itself  much  more  efficacious  in  the  production  of  good,  than  sin 
in  the  production  of  evil.  This  idea  is  illustrated  in  the  follow- 
ing verse.  The  words  oh  and  ixe?  have  a  local  force.  Where, 
i.  e.  in  the  sphere  in  which  sin  abounded;  there,  in  the  same 
sphere  grace  superabounded;  bnepenspcaa&ueiv  is  superlative,  and 
not  comparative,  and  Tzeptaoeuecv  is  stronger  than  tcXsopol^siu,  as 
Ttspcaffou  is  more  than  nXiou.  The  fact,  therefore,  of  the  triumph 
of  grace  over  sin,  is  expressed  in  the  clearest  manner. 

Verse  21.  That  as  sin  hath  reigned  unto  death,  &c.  That, 
ha,  in  order  that,  as  expressing  the  divine  purpose.  The  design 
of  God  in  permitting  sin,  and  in  allowing  it  to  abound,  was  to 
bring  good  out  of  evil;  to  make  it  the  occasion  of  the  most 
wonderful  display  of  his  glory  and  grace,  so  that  the  benefits 
of  redemption  should  infinitely  transcend  the  evils  of  the  apos- 
tasy. Sin  reigned,  kv  tip  &avdzw,  not  unto,  but  in  death,  or 
through  death.  Death  spiritual  as  well  as  temporal — evil  in  its 
widest  sense,  as  the  judicial  consequence  of  sin,  was  the  sphere 
in  which  the  power  or  triumph  of  sin  was  manifested.  Even  so 
might  grace  reign,  {&!;nsp — outcd  xai,)  as  the  one  has  happened, 
so  also  the  other.  The  one  is  in  order  to  the  other.  Grace  is 
the  unmerited  love  of  God  and  its  consequences.  It  reigns, 
i.  e.  it  is  abundantly  and  effectively  displayed,  unto  eternal  life, 
(sfC  ^ii^rjv  auovcov,)  in  securing  as  the  result  of  its  exercise,  eter- 
nal life.  This  is  done  [dta  dixacoa6vrj(;)  by  means  of  righteous- 
ness, and  that  righteousness  is  through  Jesus  Christ  our 
Lord.  As  the  triumph  of  sin  over  our  race  was  through  the 
offence  of  Adam,  so  the  triumph  of  grace  is  through  the  right- 
eousness of  Christ.  The  construction  of  this  passage,  assumed 
in  the  above  interpretation,  is  to  be  preferred  to  that  which  con- 
nects dcxacoauv/j^  eiz  ^ojtjv  auovcov,  '  righteousness  which  is  unto 


ROMANS  V.  12—21.  279 

eternal  life,  because  the  antithesis  is  not  between  death  and 
righteousness,h\it  between  death  and  life:  'Sin  reigns  in  death, 
grace  reigns  unto  life.'  That  the  benefits  of  redemption  shall 
far  outweigh  the  evils  of  the  fall,  is  here  clearly  asserted.  This 
we  can  in  a  measure  comprehend,  because,  1.  The  number  of 
the  saved  shall  doubtless  greatly  exceed  the  number  of  the  lost. 
Since  the  half  of  mankind  die  in  infancy,  and,  according  to  the 
Protestant  doctrine,  are  heirs  of  salvation;  and  since  in  the 
future  state  of  the  Church  the  knowledge  of  the  Lord  is  to 
cover  the  earth,  we  have  reason  to  believe  that  the  lost  shall 
bear  to  the  saved  no  greater  proportion  than  the  inmates  of  a 
prison  do  to  the  mass  of  the  community.  2.  Because  the  eter- 
nal Son  of  God,  by  his  incarnation  and  mediation,  exalts  his 
people  to  a  far  higher  state  of  being  than  our  race,  if  unfallen, 
could  ever  have  attained.  3.  Because  the  benefits  of  redemp- 
tion are  not  to  be  confined  to  the  human  race.  Christ  is  to  be 
admired  in  his  saints.  It  is  through  the  Church  that  the  mani- 
fold wisdom  of  God  is  to  be  revealed,  throughout  all  ages,  to 
principalities  and  powers.  The  redemption  of  man  is  to  be  the 
great  source  of  knowledge  and  blessedness  to  the  intelligent 
universe. 

DOCTRINE. 

I.  The  doctrine  of  imputation  is  clearly  taught  in  this  pas- 
sage. This  doctrine  does  not  include  the  idea  of  a  mysterious 
identity  of  Adam  and  his  race ;  nor  that  of  a  transfer  of  the 
moral  turpitude  of  his  sin  to  his  descendants.  It  does  not  teach 
that  his  offence  was  personally  or  properly  the  sin  of  all  men, 
or  that  his  act  was,  in  any  mysterious  sense,  the  act  of  his  pos- 
terity. Neither  does  it  imply,  in  reference  to  the  righteousness 
of  Christ,  that  his  righteousness  becomes  personally  and  inhe- 
rently ours,  or  that  his  moral  excellence  is  in  any  way  trans- 
ferred from  him  to  believers.  The  sin  of  Adam,  therefore,  is 
no  ground  to  us  of  remorse ;  and  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is 
no  ground  of  self-complacency  in  those  to  whom  it  is  imputed. 
This  doctrine  merely  teaches,  that  in  virtue  of  the  union,  repre- 
sentative and  natural,  between  Adam  and  his  posterity,  his  sin 
is  the  ground  of  their  condemnation,  that  is,  of  their  subjection 
to  penal  evils ;  and  that  in  virtue  of  the  union  between  Christ 


280  EOMANS  V.  12—21. 

iind  liis  people,  his  righteousness  is  the  ground  of  their  justi- 
fication. This  doctrine  is  taught  almost  in  so  many  words  in 
vs.  12,  15 — 19.  It  is  so  clearly  stated,  so  often  repeated  or 
assumed,  and  so  formally  proved,  that  very  few  commentators 
of  any  class  fail  to  acknowledge,  in  one  form  or  another,  that  it 
is  the  doctrine  of  the  apostle. 

It  would  be  easy  to  prove  that  the  statement  of  the  doctrine 
just  given  is  a  correct  exhibition  of  the  form  in  which  it  was 
held  by  the  great  body  of  the  Reformed  Churches  and  divines. 
A  few  quotations  from  men  of  universally  recognized  authority, 
as  competent  witnesses  on  this  subject,  must  suflfice.  Turrettin 
{Theol.  Mench.  Quaest.  IX.,  p.  678)  says,  "Imputation  is  either 
of  something  foreign  to  us,  or  of  something  properly  our  own. 
Sometimes  that  is  imputed  to  us  which  is  personally  ours ;  in 
which  sense  God  imputes  to  sinners  their  transgressions.  Some- 
times that  is  imputed  which  is  without  us,  and  not  performed 
by  ourselves;  thus  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  said  to  be 
imputed  to  us,  and  our  sins  are  imputed  to  him,  although  he 
has  neither  sin  in  himself,  nor  we  righteousness.  Here  we 
speak  of  the  latter  kind  of  imputation,  not  of  the  former, 
because  we  are  treating  of  a  sin  committed  by  Adam,  not  by 
us."  The  ground  of  this  imputation  is  the  union  between  Adam 
and  his  posterity.  This  union  is  not  a  mysterious  identity  of 
person,  but,  1.  "Natural,  as  he  is  the  father,  and  we  are  the 
children.  2.  Political  and  forensic,  as  he  was  the  representa- 
tive head  and  chief  of  the  whole  human  race.  The  foundation, 
therefore,  of  imputation  is  not  only  the  natural  connection 
which  exists  between  us  and  Adam,  since  in  that  case  all  his 
sins  might  be  imputed  to  us,  but  mainly  the  moral  and  federal, 
in  virtue  of  which  God  entered  into  covenant  with  him  as  our 
head."  Again,  "We  are  constituted  sinners  in  Adam  in  the 
same  way  in  which  we  are  constituted  righteous  in  Christ." 
Again,  (Vol.  II.,  p.  707,)  to  impute,  he  says,  "is  a  forensic 
term,  which  is  not  to  be  understood  physically  of  the  infusion 
of  righteousness,  but  judicially  and  relatively."  Imputation 
does  not  alter  the  moral  character ;  hence  the  same  individual 
may,  in  different  respects,  be  called  both  just  and  unjust:  "For 
when  reference  is  had  to  the  inherent  quality,  he  is  called  a 
sinner  and  ungodly ;  but  when  the  external  and  forensic  relation 


ROMANS  y.  12—21.  281 

to  Christ  is  regarded,  he  is  pronounced  just  in  Christ."  "When 
God  justifies  us  on  account  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  his 
judgment  is  still  according  to  truth;  because  he  does  not  pro- 
nounce us  just  in  ourselves  subjectively,  which  would  be  false, 
but  in  another  putatively  and  relatively."  Tuckney,  {Prcelec- 
tiones,  p.  234,)  "We  are  counted  righteous  through  Christ  in 
the  same  manner  that  we  are  counted  guilty  through  Adam. 
The  latter  is  by  imputation,  therefore  also  the  former."  "We 
are  not  so  foolish  or  blasphemous  as  to  say,  or  even  to  think, 
that  the  imputed  righteousness  of  Christ  makes  us  formally  and 
subjectively  righteous;"  see  further  quotations  from  this  writer 
on  chap.  iv.  5.  Owen  (in  his  work  on  trustification,  p.  236) 
says,  "Things  which  are  not  our  own  originally,  inherently, 
may  yet  be  imputed  to  us,  ex  justitia,  by  the  rule  of  righteous- 
ness. And  this  may  be  done  upon  a  double  relation  unto  those 
whose  they  are,  1.  Federal.  2.  Natural.  Things  done  by  one 
may  be  imputed  unto  others,  propter  relationem  foederalem^ 
because  of  a  covenant  relation  between  them.  So  the  sin  of 
Adam  was  imputed  unto  all  his  posterity.  And  the  ground 
hereof  is,  that  we  stood  in  the  same  covenant  with  him  who  was 
our  head  and  representative."  On  page  242,  he  says,  "This 
imputation  (of  Christ's  righteousness)  is  not  the  transmission  or 
transfusion  of  the  righteousness  of  another  into  them  which  are 
to  be  justified,  that  they  should  become  perfectly  and  inherently 
righteous  thereby.  For  it  is  impossible  that  the  righteousness 
of  one  should  be  transfused  into  another,  to  become  his  sub- 
jectively and  inherently."  Again,  page  307,  "As  we  are  made 
guilty  by  Adam's  actual  sin,  which  is  not  inherent  in  us,  but 
only  imputed  to  us ;  so  are  we  made  righteous  by  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ,  which  is  not  inherent  in  us,  but  only  imputed  to 
us."  On  page  468,  he  says,  "Nothing  is  intended  by  the 
imputation  of  sin  unto  any,  but  the  rendering  them  justly 
obnoxious  unto  the  punishment  due  unto  that  sin.  As  the  not 
imputing  of  sin  is  the  freeing  of  men  from  being  subject  or 
liable  to  punishment."  It  is  one  of  his  standing  declarations, 
"To  be  alienee  eulpce  reus,  makes  no  man  a  sinner."  Knapp 
(in  his  Lectures  on  Theology,  sect.  76)  says,  in  stating  what  the 
doctrine  of  imputation  is,  "  God's  imputing  the  sin  of  our  first 
parents  to  their  descendants,  amounts  to  this :  God  punishes  the 


282  ROMANS  V.  12—21. 

descendants  on  account  of  the  sin  of  their  first  parents."  This 
he  gives  as  a  mere  historical  statement  of  the  nature  of  the 
doctrine,  and  the  form  in  which  its  advocates  maintained  it. 
Zacharise  [Bib.  Theologie^  Vol.  II.,  p.  394)  says,  "If  God  allows 
the  punishment  which  Adam  incurred,  to  come  on  all  his  de- 
scendants, he  imputes  his  sin  to  them  all.  And,  in  this  sense, 
Paul  maintains  that  the  sin  of  Adam  is  imputed  to  all,  because 
the  punishment  of  the  one  offence  of  Adam  has  come  upon  all." 
And  Bretschneider,  as  quoted  above,  on  chap.  iv.  3,  when 
stating  the  doctrine  of  the  Reformers,  as  presented  in  the 
various  creeds  published  under  their  authority,  says,  that  they 
regarded  justification,  which  includes  the  idea  of  imputation,  as 
a  forensic  or  judicial  act  of  God,  by  which  the  relation  of  man 
to  God,  and  not  the  man  himself,  was  changed.  And  imputation 
of  righteousness  they  described  as  "that  judgment  of  God, 
according  to  which  he  treats  us  as  though  we  had  not  sinned, 
but  had  fulfilled  the  law,  or  as  though  the  righteousness  of 
Christ  was  ours."  This  view  of  justification  they  constantly 
maintained  in  opposition  to  the  Papists,  who  regarded  it  as  a 
moral  change,  consisting  in  what  they  called  the  infusion  of 
righteousness. 

Though  this  view  of  the  nature  of  imputation,  both  of  sin  and 
righteousness,  is  so  familiar,  yet  as  almost  all  the  objections  to 
the  doctrine  are  founded  on  the  assumption  that  it  proceeds  on 
the  ground  of  a  mysterious  identity  between  Adam  and  his  race 
on  the  one  hand,  and  Christ  and  his  people  on  the  other ;  and 
that  it  implies  the  transfer  of  the  moral  character  of  the  acts 
imputed,  it  seemed  necessary  to  present  some  small  portion  of 
the  evidence  which  might  be  adduced,  to  show  that  the  view 
of  the  subject  presented  above  is  that  which  has  always  been 
held  by  the  great  body  of  the  Reformed  Churches.  The  objec- 
tions urged  against  this  doctrine  at  the  present  day,  are  pre- 
cisely the  same  which  were  urged  by  the  Roman  Catholics 
against  the  Reformers ;  and  the  answers  which  we  are  obliged 
to  repeat,  are  the  same  which  the  Reformers  and  their  suc- 
cessors gave  to  those  with  whom  they  had  to  contend. 

It  will  be  seen  how  large  a  portion  of  the  objections  are 
answered  by  the  mere  statement  of  the  doctrine.  1.  It  is 
objected  that  this  doctrine  "  contradicts  the  essential  principles 


ROMANS  V.  12—21.  283 

of  moral  consciousness.  We  never  did,  and  never  can  feel 
guilty  of  another's  act,  which  was  done  without  any  knowledge 
or  concurrence  of  our  own.  We  may  just  as  well  say  we  can 
appropriate  to  ourselves,  and  make  our  own,  the  righteousness 
of  another,  as  his  unrighteousness.  But  we  can  never,  in  either 
case,  even  force  ourselves  into  a  consciousness  that  any  act  is 
really  our  own,  except  one  in  which  we  have  had  a  personal  and 
voluntary  concern.  A  transfer  of  moral  turpitude  is  just  as 
impossible  as  a  transfer  of  souls;  nor  does  it  lie  within  the 
boundary  of  human  effort,  that  we  should  repent  of  Adam's 
sin."  Prof.  Stuart,  p.  239.  This  idea  is  repeated  very  fre- 
quently in  his  commentary  on  this  passage,  and  the  Excursus, 
IV.  V.  "To  say  Adam's  disobedience  was  the  occasion,  or 
ground,  or  instrumental  cause  of  all  men  becoming  sinners,  and 
was  thus  an  evil  to  them  all,  and  to  say  that  his  disobedience 
was  personally  theirs,  is  saying  two  very  different  things.  I 
see  no  way  in  which  this  last  assertion  can  ever  be  made  out  by 
philology."  Compare  Mr.  Barnes,  p.  119.  Professor  Stuart 
further  says,  page  212,  that  if  verse  12  speaks  of  the  imputation 
of  Adam's  sin,  it  could  not  be  said  men  had  not  sinned  after  the 
likeness  of  Adam's  transgression.  "  So  far  from  this  must  it 
be,  that  Adam's  sin  is  their  very  sin,  and  the  ground  why  death 
reigns  over  them."  Mr.  Barnes  says_,  page  119,  "If  the  doc- 
trine of  imputation  be  true,  they  not  only  had  sinned  after 
the  similitude  of  Adam's  transgression,  but  had  sinned  the  very 
identical  sin.  It  was  precisely  like  him.  It  was  the  very  thing 
itself."  In  like  manner,  on  page  96,  he  says,  "But  if  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Scriptures  was,  that  the  entire  righteousness  of 
Christ  was  set  over  to  them,  was  really  and  truly  theirs,  and 
was  transferred  to  them  in  any  sense,  with  what  propriety  could 
the  apostle  say  that  God  justified  the  ungodly?"  &c.  "They 
are  eminently  pure,  and  have  a  claim  not  of  grace,  but  of  debt, 
to  the  very  highest  rewards  of  heaven."  It  will  be  at  once 
perceived  that  these  and  similar  objections  are  all  founded  on  a 
misapprehension  of  the  doctrine  in  question.  They  are  all 
directed  against  the  ideas  of  identity  of  person,  and  transfer  of 
moral  character,  neither  of  which  is,  as  we  have  seen,  included 
in  it ;  they  are,  moreover,  not  only  inconsistent  with  the  true 
nature  of  the  doctrine,  but  with  the  statements  and  arguments 


284  ROMANS  V.  12—21. 

of  these  writers  themselves.  Thus  Professor  Stuart,  page  239, 
says,  "  That  '  the  son  shall  not  die  for  the  iniquity  of  the  father,' 
is  as  true  as  that  '  the  father  shall  not  die  for  the  iniquity  of 
the  son;'  as  God  has  most  fully  declared  in  Ezek.  xviii." 
According  to  this  view  of  the  subject,  "for  the  son  to  die  for 
the  iniquity  of  the  father,"  is  to  have  the  sin  of  the  father 
imputed  to  him,  or  laid  to  his  charge.  The  ideas  of  personal 
identity  and  transfer  of  moral  character  are  necessarily  excluded 
from  it,  by  its  opponents  themselves,  who  thus  virtually  admit 
the  irrelevancy  of  their  previous  objections.  The  fact  is,  that 
imputation  is  never  represented  as  affecting  the  moral  charac- 
ter, but  merely  the  relation  of  men  to  God  and  his  law.  To 
impute  sin  is  to  regard  and  treat  as  a  sinner ;  and  to  impute 
righteousness  is  to  regard  and  treat  as  righteous. 

2.  It  is  said  that  this  doctrine  is  nothing  but  a  theory,  an 
attempt  to  explain  what  the  apostle  does  not  explain,  a  philo- 
sophical speculation,  &c.  This  again  is  a  mistake.  It  is  neither 
a  theory  nor  a  philosophical  speculation,  but  the  statement  of  a 
scriptural  fact  in  scriptural  language.  Paul  says,  For  the 
offence  of  one  man  all  men  are  condemned ;  and  for  the  right- 
eousness of  one  all  are  regarded  and  treated  as  righteous.  This 
is  the  whole  doctrine. 

3.  It  is  asserted  that  the  word  impute  is  never  used  in  the 
Bible,  in  reference  to  reckoning  or  charging  upon  a  man  any 
thing  which  is  not  strictly  and  properly  his  own.  But  this  has 
been  shown  to  be  incorrect ;  see  chap.  iv.  3.  It  is  used  twice 
in  chap,  iv.,  of  "imputing  righteousness"  to  those  without 
works,  to  the  ungodly,  &c.  But  if  the  objection  were  well 
founded,  it  would  be  destitute  of  any  force;  for  if  the  word 
means  so  to  ascribe  an  action  to  a  man  as  to  treat  him  as  the 
author  of  it,  it  would  be  correct  and  scriptural  to  say  that  the 
sin  or  righteousness  of  one  man  is  imputed  to  another,  when 
that  sin  or  righteousness  is  made  the  ground  of  the  condemna- 
tion or  justification  of  any  other  than  its  personal  authors. 

4.  It  is  denied  that  Adam  was  the  representative  of  his  pos- 
terity, because  he  is  not  so  called  in  Scripture,  and  because  a 
representative  supposes  the  consent  of  those  for  whom  he  acts. 
But  this  is  a  mistake.  It  is  rare  that  a  representative  is 
appointed  by  the  choice  of  all  on  whom  his  acts  are  binding. 


ROMANS  V.  12—21.  285 

This  is  the  case  in  no  country  in  the  world;  and  nothing  is 
more  common  than  for  a  parent  or  court  to  appoint  a  guardian 
to  act  as  the  representative  of  a  minor.  If  it  is  competent  for 
a  parent  to  make  such  an  appointment,  it  is  surely  proper  in 
God.  It  is  a  mere  question  of  fact.  If  the  Scriptures  teach 
that  Adam  was  on  trial  not  for  himself  only,  but  also  for  his 
posterity ;  if  the  race  fell  when  he  fell ;  then  do  they  teach  that 
he  was  in  fact  and  form  their  representative.  That  they  do 
teach  the  fact  supposed,  can  scarcely  be  denied ;  it  is  asserted 
as  often  as  it  is  stated  that  the  sin  of  Adam  was  the  ground  of 
the  condemnation  of  men. 

5.  It  is  said  that  the  doctrine  of  imputation  is  inconsistent 
with  the  first  principles  of  justice.  This  objection  is  only  of 
force  against  the  mistaken  view  given  above.  It  has  no  weight 
against  the  true  doctrine.  It  is  on  all  hands  admitted  that  the 
sin  of  Adam  involved  the  race  in  ruin.  This  is  the  whole  diffi- 
culty. How  is  it  to  be  reconciled  with  the  divine  character, 
that  the  fate  of  unborn  millions  should  depend  on  an  act  over 
which  they  had  not  the  slightest  control,  and  in  which  they  had 
no  agency  ?  This  difficulty  presses  the  opponents  of  the  doc- 
trine more  heavily  than  its  advocates.  The  former  have  no 
advantage  over  the  latter ;  not  in  the  amount  of  evil  inflicted, 
because  they  make  the  evil  directly  inflicted  on  account  of 
Adam's  sin  much  greater  than  the  others  do;  not  in  the  pro- 
vision made  for  the  redemption  of  the  race  from  this  evil, 
because  both  maintain  that  the  work  of  Christ  brings  the  ofier 
of  life  to  the  whole  race,  while  it  infallibly  secures  the  salvation 
of  a  multitude  which  no  man  can  number.  The  opinion  of  those 
writers  not  only  has  no  advantage  over  the  common  doctrine, 
but  it  is  encumbered  with  difficulties  peculiar  to  itself.  It 
represents  the  race  as  being  involved  in  ruin  and  condemnation, 
without  having  the  slightest  probation.  According  to  one  view, 
they  "  are  born  with  a  corrupt  disposition,  and  with  the  loss 
of  righteousness,  and  subjection  to  pain  and  wo,"  by  a  mere 
arbitrary  appointment  of  God,  and  without  a  trial,  either  per- 
sonally, or  by  a  representative.  According  to  another  view, 
men  are  born  without  any  such  corrupt  disposition,  but  in  a 
state  of  indiff"erence,  and  are  placed  on  their  probation  at  the 
very  first  moment  of  moral  agency,  and  under  a  constitution 


286  ROMANS  V.  12—21. 

■which  infallibly  secures  their  becoming  sinners.  According  to 
the  realistic  doctrine,  revived  by  the  modern  speculative  theo- 
logians of  the  school  of  Schleiermacher,  humanity  existed  as  a 
generic  life  in  Adam.  The  acts  of  that  life  were  therefore  the 
acts  of  all  the  individuals  to  whom,  in  the  development  of  the 
race,  the  life  itself  was  communicated.  All  men  consequently 
sinned  in  Adam,  by  an  act  of  self-determination.  They  are 
punished,  therefore,  not  for  Adam's  act,  but  for  their  own ;  not 
simply  for  their  innate  depravity,  nor  for  their  personal  acts 
only,  but  for  the  act  which  they  committed  thousands  of  years 
ago,  when  their  nature,  i.  e.  their  intelligence  and  will,  were 
determined  to  evil  in  the  person  of  Adam.  This  is  avowedly  a 
philosophical  doctrine.  This  doctrine  assumes  the  objective 
reality  of  human  nature  as  a  generic  life.  It  takes  for  granted 
that  persons  can  act  before  they  exist,  or  that  actual  sin  can  be 
committed  by  an  impersonal  nature,  which  is  a  contradiction  in 
terms,  inasmuch  as  an  intelligent,  voluntary  act  is  an  act  of  a 
person.  If  we  actually  sinned  in  Adam,  then  we  (as  persons) 
were  then  in  conscious  being.  This  doctrine  is  directly  opposed 
to  Scripture,  which  expressly  teaches  that  the  sin  of  Adam,  and 
not  our  personal  sin,  was  the  original  ground  of  condemnation ; 
as  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  and  not  our  personal  righteous- 
ness, is  the  ground  of  our  justification.  No  less  clearly  does 
the  Bible  condemn  the  other  doctrines  just  mentioned.  Paul 
represents  the  evils  which  came  on  men  on  account  of  the 
offence  of  Adam,  as  a  condemnation ;  not  as  an  arbitrary  inflic- 
tion, nor  as  a  merely  natural  consequence.  We  are  bound  to 
acquiesce  in  the  truth  as  taught  in  the  Scriptures,  and  not  to 
introduce  explanations  and  theories  of  our  own.  The  denial 
of  this  doctrine  involves  also  the  denial  of  the  scriptural  view 
of  atonement  and  justification.  It  is  essential  to  the  scriptural 
form  of  these  doctrines,  that  the  idea  of  legal  substitution  should 
be  retained.  Christ  bore  our  sins ;  our  iniquities  were  laid  upon 
him,  which,  according  to  the  true  meaning  of  scriptural  lan- 
guage, can  only  signify,  that  he  bore  the  punishment  of  those 
sins ;  not  the  same  evils,  indeed,  either  in  kind  or  degree ;  but 
still  penal,  because  judicially  inflicted  for  the  support  of  law. 
It  matters  little  whether  a  debt  be  paid  in  gold  or  copper,  pro- 
vided it  is  cancelled.     And  as  a  comparatively  small  quantity 


ROMANS  V.  12—21.  287 

of  the  former  is  of  equal  value  with  a  great  deal  of  the  latter, 
so  the  temporary  sufferings  of  Christ  are  of  more  value  for  all 
the  purposes  of  punishment,  than  the  eternal  sufferings  of  all 
mankind.  It  is  then  no  objection  to  the  scriptural  doctrine  of 
sacrifice  and  atonement,  that  Christ  did  not  suffer  the  same 
kind  or  degi'ee  of  evil,  which  those  for  whom  he  died  must  have 
endured  in  their  own  persons.  This  idea  of  legal  substitution 
enters  also  into  the  scriptural  view  of  justification.  In  justifi- 
cation, according  to  Paul's  language,  God  imputes  righteousness 
to  the  ungodly.  This  righteousness  is  not  their  own ;  but  they 
are  regarded  and  treated  as  righteous  on  account  of  the  obedi- 
ence of  Christ.  That  is,  his  righteousness  is  so  laid  to  their 
account,  or  imputed  to  them,  that  they  are  regarded  and  treated 
as  if  it  were  their  own ;  or  "  as  if  they  had  kept  the  law."  This 
is  the  great  doctrine  of  the  Reformation,  Luther's  articulus 
staiitis  vel  cadentis  ecclesice.  The  great  question  between  the 
Papists  and  Protestants  was,  whether  men  are  justified  on 
account  of  inherent  or  imputed  righteousness.  For  the  latter, 
the  Protestants  contended  as  for  their  lives,  and  for  the  life  of 
the  Church.  See  the  passages  quoted  above  on  chap.  iv.  3,  and 
the  Confessions  of  that  period.* 

*  Apol.,  art.  9,  p.  226.  Merita  propitiatoris — aliis  donantur  imputatione 
divina,  ut  per  ea,  tanquam  propriis  meritis  justi  reputentur,  ut  si  quis  amicus 
pro  amico  solvit  aes  alienum,  debitor  alieno  merito  tanquam  proprio  liberatur. 

F.  Concordantise,  art.  3,  p.  687.  Ad  justificationem  tria  requiruntur:  gratia 
Dei,  meritum  Christi  et  fides,  quae  haec  ipsa  Dei  beneficia  amplectitur;  qua 
ratione  nobis  Christi  justitia  imputatur,  unde  remissionem  peccatorum,  recon- 
ciliationem  cum  Deo,  adoptionem  in  filios  Dei  et  hgereditatem  vitae  aeternjB 
consequimur. 

F.  C.  III.,  p.  684.  Fides  non  propterea  justificat,  quod  ipsa  tarn  bonum  opus, 
tamque  prseclara  virtus  sit,  sed  quia  in  promissione  evangelii  meritum  Christi 
apprehmdit  et  amplectitur,  illud  enim  per  fidem  nobis  applicari  debet,  si  eo  ipso 
merito  justificari  velimus. 

F.  C.  III.,  p.  688.  Cliristi  justitia  nobis  imputatur,  unde  remissionem  pecca- 
torum consequimur. 

Bretschneider,  Dog.,  Vol.  II.,  p.  254,  says  that,  according  to  the  creeds  of 
the  Reformation,  justification  "is  that  act  of  God  in  which  he  imputes  to  a  man 
the  merit  of  Christ,  and  no  longer  regards  and  treats  him  as  a  sinner,  but  as 
righteous."  "It  is  an  act  in  which  neither  man  nor  God  changes,  but  the  man 
is  merely  freed  from  guilt,  and  declared  to  be  free  from  punishment,  and  hence 
the  relation  only  between  God  and  man  is  altered."  This,  he  says,  the  sym- 
bolical books  maintained,  in  opposition  to  the  Romish  Church,  which  makes 
justification  a  moral  change. 


288  ROMANS  V.  12—21. 

6.  As  the  term  death  is  used  for  any  and  every  evil  judicially 
inflicted  as  the  punishment  of  sin,  the  amount  and  nature  of  the 
evil  not  being  expressed  by  the  word,  it  is  no  part  of  the  apos- 
tle's doctrine,  that  eternal  misery  is  inflicted  on  any  man  for 
the  sin  of  Adam,  irrespective  of  inherent  depravity  or  actual 
transgression.  It  is  enough  for  all  the  purposes  of  his  argu- 
ment, that  this  sin  was  the  ground  of  the  loss  of  the  divine 
favour,  the  withholding  of  divine  influence,  and  the  consequent 
corruption  of  our  nature.  Turrettin,  Theologia  JElencL,  vol.  i., 
page  680 :  "  Poena  quam  peccatum  Adami  in  nos  accersit,  vel 
est  privativa,  vel  positiva.  Quoad  primam  dicimus  Adami  pecca- 
tum nobis  imputari  immediate  ad  poenam  privativam,  quia  est 
causa  privationis  justitije  originalis,  et  sic  corruptionem  antece- 
dere  debet  saltern  ordine  naturae :  Sed  quoad  posteriorem  potest 
dici  imputari  mediate  quoad  poenam  positivam,  quia  isti  poenae 
obnoxii  non  sumus,  nisi  postquam  nati  et  corrupt!  sumus." 

7.  It  is  said  that  it  is  inconsistent  with  the  omniscience  and 
veracity  of  God,  and  consequently  with  his  nature  as  God,  that 
he  should  regard  and  treat  as  sinners  those  who  are  not  sinners, 
or  those  as  righteous  who  are  in  fact  unrighteous.  God's  judg- 
ments are  according  to  truth,  and  therefore  must  be  determined 
by  the  real,  subjective  character  of  those  whom  they  concern. 
This  difficulty  arises  simply  from  the  ambiguity  of  language. 
The  words  sinner.,  just,  unjust,  righteous,  and  unrighteous,  in 
English,  and  the  corresponding  words  in  other  languages,  are 
familiarly  and  properly  used  in  two  distinct  senses.  They 
sometimes  express  moral  character,  and  sometimes  legal  rela- 
tions. A  man  may  therefore  be  just  and  unjust,  righteous  and 
unrighteous  at  the  same  time.  A  criminal  who  has  satisfied  the 
demands  of  justice,  is  just  in  the  eye  of  the  law ;  he  cannot  be 
again  or  further  punished  for  his  ofl'ence,  and  is  entitled  to  all 
his  rights  as  a  citizen,  although  morally  unrighteous.  The 
sinner,  and  every  sinner  whom  God  accepts  or  pronounces  right- 
eous for  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  feels  himself  to  be  in  his 
own  person  most  unrighteous.  God's  judgment,  in  pronouncing 
him  righteous,  is  none  the  less  according  to  truth.  He  does  not 
pronounce  the  sinner  subjectively  righteous,  which  he  is  not, 
but  forensically  righteous,  which  he  is,  because  Christ  has 
satisfied  the  demands  of  justice  on  his  behalf.     In  like  manner, 


ROMANS  V.  12—21.  280 

when  our  blessed  Lord,  although  he  knew  no  sin,  is  saiil  to 
have  been  made  sin,  it  only  means  that  he  assumed  the  respon- 
sibility of  meeting  the  requirements  of  the  law  in  our  place ;  so 
that  his  sufferings  were  not  chastisements  or  calamities,  but  of 
the  nature  of  punishment.  He  was  condemned  for  our  sakes, 
as  we  are  justified  for  his.  It  is  no  impeachment,  therefore, 
of  the  omniscience  or  veracity  of  God,  when  he  holds  us  as 
guilty  on  account  of  Adam's  sin,  as  he  does  not  pronounce  us 
morally  criminal  for  his  offence,  but  simply  declares  that  for 
the  ends  of  justice  we  are  involved  in  his  condemnation. 

8.  Perhaps  the  most  operative  of  all  objections  against  the 
doctrine  of  imputation  is  founded  on  the  assumption  that  moral 
character  must  be  self-originated.  It  is  assumed  that  inhe- 
rent, hereditary  depravity  in  man  cannot  have  the  nature  of  sin 
and  involve  guilt,  unless  it  is  due  to  his  own  act.  This  princi- 
ple, however,  is  not  only  erroneous,  but  contrary  to  the  plainest 
and  most  universally  received  doctrines  of  the  Bible.  It  is  the 
intuitive  judgment  of  men  that  moral  qualities  owe  their  charac- 
ter to  their  nature,  and  not  to  their  origin.  A  holy  being  is 
recognized  as  holy,  whether  his  holiness  be  concreated,  infused, 
or  self-originated.  All  Churches  believe  that  Adam  was  created 
holy ;  all  Churches  believe  that  holiness  is  the  product  of  divine 
power  in  regeneration ;  and  all  Churches,  that  is,  the  Latin, 
Lutheran,  and  Reformed,  acknowledge  that  innate  depravity  is 
truly  sin,  although  anterior  to  any  act  of  self-determination  on 
our  part  to  evil.  It  is  not  necessary,  therefore,  to  assume  that 
if  men  are  born  in  sin,  their  sinfulness  is  to  be  referred  to 
their  personal  act.  It  may,  consistently  with  the  common  judg- 
ment of  men,  and  with  the  faith  of  the  Church  universal,  be  a 
penal  consequence  of  the  sin  of  Adam. 

II.  Whatever  evil  the  Scriptures  represent  as  coming  upon 
us  on  account  of  Adam,  they  regard  as  penal;  they  call  it 
death,  which  is  the  general  term  by  which  any  penal  evil  is 
expressed.  It  is  not  however  the  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures, 
nor  of  the  Reformed  Churches,  nor  of  our  standards,  that  the 
corruption  of  nature  of  which  they  speak,  is  any  depravation 
of  the  soul,  or  an  essential  attribute,  or  the  infusion  of  any  posi- 
tive evil.  "Original  sin,"  as  the  Confessions  of  the  Reformers 
maintain,  "is  not  the  substance  of  man,  neither  his  soul  nor 
19 


290  ROMANS  V.  12—21. 

body ;  nor  is  it  anything  infused  into  his  nature  by  Satan,  as 
poison  is  mixed  with  wine ;  it  is  not  an  essential  attribute,  but 
an  accident,*  i.  e.  something  which  does  not  exist  of  itself,  an 
incidental  quality,"  &c.  Bretschneider,  vol.  ii.,  p.  30.  These 
confessions  teach  that  original  righteousness  was  lost,  as  a 
punishment  of  Adam's  sin,  and  hy  that  defect,  the  tendency  to 
sin,  or  corrupt  disposition,  or  corruption  of  nature  is  occa- 
sioned, f  Though  they  speak  of  original  sin  as  being,  first, 
negative,  i.  e.  the  loss  of  righteousness ;  and  secondly,  positive, 
or  corruption  of  nature ;  yet  by  the  latter,  they  state,  is  to  be 
understood,  not  the  infusion  of  anything  in  itself  sinful,  but  an 
actual  tendency  or  disposition  to  evil,  resulting  from  the  loss 
of  righteousness.  This  is  clearly  expressed  in  the  quotation 
just  made.  It  is  therefore  in  perfect  consistency  with  his  own 
views,  and  with  those  of  the  Protestant  creeds,  that  President 
Edwards  teaches,  in  his  book  on  Original  Sin,  "It  is  agreeable 
to  the  sentiments  of  the  best  divines,  that  all  sin  comes  from  a 
defective  or  privative  cause,"  (p.  28;)  and  that  he  argues 
against  the  idea  of  any  evil  quality  being  infused,  implanted,  or 
wrought  into  our  nature  by  any  positive  cause  or  influence 
whatever,  either  of  God  or  the  creature,  &c.  With  equal  con- 
sistency and  propriety,  he  goes  on  to  state  that  "  the  absence 
of  positive  good  principles,"  and  "the  withholding  of  special 
divine  influence,"  and  "the  leaving  of  the  common  principles 
of  self-love,  natural  appetite,  which  were  in  man  in  innocence," 
are  sufiicient  to  account  for  all  the  corruption  which  appears 
among  men.  Goodwin,  one  of  the  strictest  Puritanical  divines, 
(vol.  iii.,  p.  323,)  has  a  distinct  chapter  to  prove,  "that  there 
is  no  necessity  of  asserting  original  sin  to  be  a  positive  quality 
in  our  souls,  since  the  privation  of  righteousness  is  enough  to 
infect  the  soul  with  all  that  is  evil."     Yet  he,  in  common  with 

*  Accidens:  quod  non  per  se  subsistit,  sed  in  aliqua  substantia  est  et  ab  ea 
discerni  possit. 

f  F.  Concor.  I.,  p.  643:  Etsi  enim  in  Adamo  et  Heva  natura  initio  pura, 
boua  et  saacta  creata  est;  tamen  per  lapsum  peccatum  non  eo  modo  ipsorum 
naturam  invasit,  ut  Manichaei  dixerunt — quin  potius  cum  seductione  Satanse 
per  lapsum,  justo  Dei  judicio  (in  poenam  hominum)  justitia  concreata  seu 
originalis  amissa  esset,  defectu  illo,  privatione  seu  spoliatione  et  vulneratione, 
(quorum  malorum  Satan  causa  est)  bumana  natura  ita  corrupta  est,  ut  jam 
natura,  una  cum  illo  defectu  et  corruptione,  &c. 


ROMANS  V.  12—21.  291 

the  Reformers,  represents  original  sin  as  having  a  positive  as 
well  as  a  negative  side.  This,  however,  results  from  the  active 
nature  of  the  soul.  If  there  is  no  tendency  to  the  love  and 
service  of  God,  there  is,  from  this  very  defect,  a  tendency  to 
self  and  sin.  How  large  a  portion  of  the  objections  to  the  doc- 
trine of  original  sin  is  founded  on  the  idea  of  its  being  an  evil 
positively  infused  into  our  nature,  "as  poison  is  mixed  with 
wine,"  may  be  inferred  from  the  exclamation  of  Professor 
Stuart,  in  reference  to  the  passage  just  quoted  from  President 
Edwards.  He  says  it  is  "a  signal  instance,  indeed,  of  the 
triumph  of  the  spontaneous  feelings  of  our  nature  over  the 
power  of  system!''  It  would  seem  from  this,  that  he  has  no 
objection  to  the  doctrine  as  thus  stated.  And  yet  this  is 
the  form  in  which,  as  we  have  just  seen,  it  is  presented  in 
the  creeds  of  the  Reformers,  and  the  works  of  the  "best 
divines." 

It  will  be  at  once  perceived  that  all  such  questions  as  the 
following,  proceed  on  an  incorrect  apprehension  of  the  point  at 
issue.  It  is  often  asked.  If  Adam's  first  sin  is  propagated  to 
us,  why  not  all  his  other  sins,  and  the  sins  of  all  our  ancestors  ? 
No  one  properly  maintains  that  Adam's  first  sin,  his  act  of 
eating  the  forbidden  fruit,  is  propagated  to  any  one.  This  is  a 
sheer  impossibility.  We  derive  from  Adam  a  nature  destitute 
of  any  native  tendency  to  the  love  and  service  of  God;  and 
since  the  soul,  from  its  nature,  is  filled  as  it  were  with  suscep- 
tibilities, dispositions  or  tendencies  to  certain  modes  of  acting, 
or  to  objects  out  of  itself,  if  destitute  of  the  governing  tendency 
or  disposition  to  holiness  and  God,  it  has,  of  course,  a  tendency 
to  self-gratification  and  sin.  There  is  surely  nothing  incredible 
or  inconceivable  in  the  existence  of  a  native  tendency  to  delight 
in  God,  any  more  than  in  the  existence  of  a  tendency  or  dis- 
position to  delight  in  beauty,  or  social  intercourse,  or  in  our 
own  ofljspring.  Men  have  still  an  innate  sense  of  right  and 
wrong,  a  natural  sense  of  justice,  &c.  Why  then  may  not  Adam 
have  been  created  with  an  analogous  tendency  to  delight  in 
God  ?  And  if  this  disposition  presupposes  a  state  of  friendship 
with  his  Maker,  or  if  it  is  the  result  of  special  Divine  influence, 
why  may  not  that  influence  be  withheld  as  the  expression  of 
God's  displeasure  for  the  apostasy  and  rebellion  of  man?    This 


292  ROMANS  V.  12—21. 

is  perfectly  analogous  to  the  dealings  of  God  in  his  providence, 
and  agreeable  to  the  declarations  of  his  word.  He  abandons 
sinners  to  themselves  as  a  punishment  of  their  transgressions ; 
he  withholds  or  withdraws  blessings  from  children,  in  punish- 
ment, or  as  an  expression  of  his  displeasure,  for  the  sins  of  their 
parents.  There  is,  therefore,  nothing  in  this  doctrine  at  vari- 
ance with  the  Divine  character  or  conduct.  On  the  contrary,  it 
has  in  its  support  the  whole  tenor  of  his  dealings  with  our  race, 
from  the  beginning  of  the  world.  The  objections,  therefore, 
founded  on  the  supposed  absurdity  of  the  propagation  of  sin, 
and  especially  of  Adam's  first  sin,  all  rest  on  misapprehension 
of  the  doctrine  in  dispute. 

Nor  is  the  objection  any  better  supported,  that  the  doctrine 
of  corruption  of  nature  makes  God,  from  whom  that  nature 
proceeds,  the  author  of  sin.  Our  nature  is  not  corrupted  by 
any  positive  act  of  God,  or  by  the  infusion,  implanting,  or 
inworking  of  any  habit  or  principle  of  sin ;  God  merely  with- 
holds judicially  those  influences  which  produced  in  Adam  a 
tendency  or  disposition  to  holiness;  precisely  as  a  monarch 
often,  from  the  purest  and  wisest  motives,  withholds  favours 
from  the  children  of  traitors  or  rebels,  or  bestows  them  upon 
the  children  of  patriots  and  public  benefactors.  There  is  in 
every  human  being  a  tendency  to  act  upon  the  same  principle. 
We  are  all  disposed  to  regard  with  less  favour  the  children  of 
the  wicked  than  the  children  of  the  good.  If  this  principle  is 
recognized  even  in  the  ordinary  dealings  of  Divine  Providence, 
we  need  not  wonder  at  its  being  acted  upon  in  that  great  trans- 
action which  decided  the  fate  of  the  world,  as  Adam  was  not  on 
trial  for  himself  alone,  but  also  for  his  posterity. 

As  little  weight  is  due  to  the  objection,  that  the  law  of  pro- 
pagation does  not  secure  the  transmission  of  bodily  defects,  or 
mental  and  moral  peculiarities  of  parents  to  their  children. 
This  objection  supposes  that  the  derivation  of  a  corrupt  nature 
from  Adam  is  resolved  into  this  general  law;  whereas  it  is 
uniformly  represented  as  a  peculiar  case,  founded  on  the  repre- 
sentative character  of  Adam,  and  not  to  be  accounted  for  by 
this  general  law  exclusively.  It  is  constantly  represented  as 
resulting  from  the  judicial  withholding  of  the  influences  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  from  an  apostate  race.     See  the  Confessions  of  the 


ROMANS  V.  12—21. 

Reformers  quoted  above :  Defectus  et  concwpiscentia  sunt  poence^ 
Ajjolgia  /.,  p.  58.  That  the  peculiarities,  and  especially  that 
the  piety  of  parents,  are  not  transmitted  by  the  law  of  propa- 
gation, from  parents  to  children,  does  not  therefore  present  a 
shadow  of  an  objection  to  the  common  doctrine  on  this  subject. 
The  notorious  fact,  however,  that  the  mental  and  moral  pecu- 
liarities of  parents  are  transmitted  to  their  children,  frequently 
and  manifestly,  though  not  with  the  uniformity  of  an  established 
law,  answers  two  important  purposes.  It  shows  that  there  is 
nothing  absurd,  or  out  of  analogy  with  God's  dealing  with  men, 
in  the  doctrine  of  hereditary  depravity ;  and  also,  that  the  doc- 
trine is  consistent  with  God's  goodness  and  justice.  For  if, 
under  the  administration  of  the  divine  Being,  analogous  facts 
are  daily  occurring,  it  must  be  right  and  consistent  with  the 
perfections  of  God. 

The  most  common  and  plausible  objection  to  this  doctrine  is, 
that  it  is  inconsistent  with  the  nature  of  sin  and  holiness  to 
suppose  that  either  one  or  the  other  can  be  innate,  or  that  a 
disposition  or  principle,  which  is  not  the  result  of  choice,  can 
possess  a  moral  character.  To  this  objection,  President  Edwards 
answers,  "  In  the  first  place,  I  think  it  a  contradiction  to  the 
nature  of  things,  as  judged  of  by  the  common-sense  of  mankind. 
It  is  agreeable  to  the  sense  of  the  minds  of  men  in  all  ages,  not 
only  that  the  fruit  or  effect  of  a  good  choice  is  virtuous,  but  the 
good  choice  itself,  from  which  that  effect  proceeds ;  yea,  and  not 
only  so,  but  the  antecedent  good  disposition,  temper,  or  affec- 
tion of  mind,  from  whence  proceeds  that  good  choice,  is  virtu- 
ous. This  is  the  general  notion,  not  that  .principles  derive  their 
goodness  from  actions,  but  that  actions  derive  their  goodness 
from  the  principles  whence  they  proceed ;  and  so  that  the  act 
of  choosing  that  which  is  good  is  no  farther  virtuous  than  it 
proceeds  from  a  good  principle  or  virtuous  disposition  of  mind, 
which  supposes  that'  a  virtuous  disposition  of  mind  may  be 
before  a  virtuous  act  of  choice ;  and  that,  therefore,  it  is  not 
necessary  that  there  should  first  be  thought,  reflection,  and 
choice,  before  there  can  be  any  virtuous  disposition.  If  the 
choice  be  first,  before  the  existence  of  a  good  disposition  of 
heart,  what  signifies  that  choice  ?  There  can,  according  to  our 
natural  notions,  be  no  virtue  in  a  choice  which  proceeds  from 


294  ROMANS  V.  12—21. 

no  virtuous  principle,  but  from  mere  self-love,  ambition,  or  some 
animal  appetite."  Original  Sin,  p.  140.  It  is  certainly  accord- 
ing to  the  intuitive  judgment  of  men,  that  innate  dispositions 
are  amiable  or  unamiable,  moral  or  immoral,  according  to  their 
nature ;  and  that  their  character  does  not  depend  on  the  mode 
of  their  production.  The  parental  instinct,  pity,  sympathy  with 
the  happiness  and  sorrows  of  others,  though  founded  in  innate 
principles  of  our  nature,  are  universally  regarded  as  amiable 
attributes  of  the  soul;  and  the  opposite  dispositions  as  the 
reverse.  In  like  manner,  the  sense  of  justice,  hatred  of  cruelty 
and  oppression,  though  natural,  are  moral  from  their  very 
nature.  And  the  universal  disposition  to  prefer  ourselves  to 
others,  though  the  strongest  of  all  the  native  tendencies  of  the 
mind,  is  no  less  universally  recognized  as  evil. 

The  opposite  opinion,  which  denies  the  possibility  of  moral 

dispositions  prior  to  acts  of  choice,  is  irreconcilable  with  the 

nature  of  virtue,  and  involves  us  in  all  the  difficulties  of  the 

doctrine,  that  indifference  is  necessary  to  the  freedom  of  the 

will  and  the  morality  of  actions.     If  Adam  was  created  neither 

holy  nor  unholy,  if  it  is  not  true  that  "  God  made  man  upright," 

but  that  he  formed  his  own  moral  character,  how  is  his  choice 

of  God  as  the  portion  of  his  soul  to  be  accounted  for  ?    Or  what 

moral  character  could  it  have?     To  say  that  the  choice  was 

made  from  the  desire  of  happiness,  or  the  impulse  of  self-love, 

aiFords  no  solution  of  the  case ;  because  it  does  not  account  for 

the  nature  of  the   choice.     It  assigns  no  reason  why  God,  in 

preference  to  any  other  object,  was  chosen.     This  desire  could 

only  prompt  to  a  choice,  but  could  not  determine  the  object. 

If  it  be  said  that  the  choice  was  determined  by  the  superior 

excellence  of  God  as  a  source  of  happiness,  this  supposes  that 

this  excellence  was,  in  the  view  of  the  mind,  an  object  supremely 

desirable ;  but  the  desire  of  moral  excellence  is,  from  the  nature 

of  the  case,  a  moral  or  virtuous  desire ;  anil  if  this  determined 

the  choice,  moral  character  existed  prior  to  this  determination 

of  the  will,  and  neither  consisted  in  it,  nor  resulted  from  it. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  the  choice  was  determined  by  no  desire 

of  the  object  as  a  moral  good,  it  could  have  no  moral  character. 

How  is  it  possible  that  the  choice  of  an  object  which  is  made 

from  no   regard   for   its    excellence,    should  have    any  moral 


ROMANS  V.  12—21.  295 

character?  The  choice,  considered  as  an  act  of  the  mind, 
derives  its  character  entirely  from  the  motive  by  which  it  is 
determined.  If  the  motive  be  desire  for  it  as  morally  excel 
lent,  the  choice  is  morally  good,  and  is  the  evidence  of  an  ante- 
cedent virtuous  disposition  of  mind ;  but  if  the  motive  be  mere 
self-love,  the  choice  is  neither  good  nor  bad.  There  is  no  way, 
on  the  theory  in  question,  of  accounting  for  this  preference  for 
God,  but  by  assuming  the  self-determining  power  of  the  will, 
and  supposing  that  the  selection  of  one  object,  rather  than 
another,  is  made  prior  to  the  rise  of  the  desire  for  it  as  excel- 
lent, and  consequently  in  a  state  of  indifference. 

This  reasoning,  though  it  applies  to  the  origin  of  holiness,  is 
not  applicable  to  the  origin  of  sin ;  and,  therefore,  the  objection 
that  it  supposes  a  sinful  disposition  to  exist  in  Adam,  prior  to 
his  first  transgression,  is  not  valid.  Because  an  act  of  disobedi- 
ence performed  under  the  impulse  of  self-love,  or  of  some  animal 
appetite,  is  sinful,  it  does  not  follow  that  an  act  of  obedience, 
performed  under  a  similar  impulse,  and  without  any  regard  for 
God  or  moral  excellence,  is  virtuous. 

Of  all  the  facts  ascertained  by  the  history  of  the  world,  it 
would  seem  to  be  among  the  plainest,  that  men  are  born  desti- 
tute of  a  disposition  to  seek  their  chief  good  in  God,  and  with  a 
disposition  to  make  self-gratification  the  great  end  of  their 
being.  Even  reason,  conscience,  and  natural  aff'ection,  are  less 
universal  characteristics  of  our  fallen  race.  For  there  are  idiots 
and  moral  monsters  often  to  be  met  with ;  but  for  a  child  of 
Adam,  uninfluenced  by  the  special  grace  of  God,  to  delight  in 
his  Maker,  as  the  portion  of  his  soul,  from  the  first  dawn  of  his 
moral  being,  is  absolutely  without  example  among  all  the  thou- 
sands of  millions  of  men  who  have  inhabited  our  world.  If 
experience  can  establish  anything,  it  establishes  the  truth  of  the 
scriptural  declaration,  "that  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh." 
It  would  seem  no  less  plain,  that  this  cannot  be  the  original 
and  normal  state  of  man ;  that  human  nature  is  not  now  what 
it  was  when  it  proceeded  from  the  hand  of  God.  Every  thing 
else  which  God  has  made,  answers  the  end  of  its  being ;  but 
human  nature,  since  the  fall,  has  uniformly  worked  badly:  in 
no  one  instance  has  it  spontaneously  turned  to  God  as  its  chief 
good.     It  cannot  be  believed  that  God  thus  made  man;  that 


296  ROMANS  V.  12—21. 

there  has  been  no  perversion  of  his  faculties ;  no  loss  of  some 
original  and  guiding  disposition  or  tendency  of  his  mind.  It 
cannot  be  credited  that  men  are  now  what  Adam  was,  when  he 
first  opened  his  eyes  on  the  wonders  of  creation  and  the  glories 
of  God.  Reason,  Scripture,  and  experience,  therefore,  all 
concur  in  support  of  the  common  doctrine  of  the  Christian 
world,  that  the  race  fell  in  Adam,  lost  their  original  rectitude, 
and  became  prone  to  evil  as  the  sparks  fly  upward. 

This  doctrine  has  so  strong  a  witness  in  the  religious  experi- 
ence of  Christians,  that  it  is  not  wonderful  that  it  has  been 
almost  universally  received.  Individual  opponents  and  objectors 
have  indeed  appeared,  from  time  to  time ;  but  it  is  believed  that 
no  organized  sect,  bearing  the  Christian  name,  the  Socinians 
excepted,  have  ever  discarded  it  from  the  articles  of  their  faith. 
It  is  so  intimately  connected  with  the  doctrines  of  divine  influ- 
ence and  redemption,  that  they  have  almost  uniformly  been 
held  or  rejected  together.  It  has  indeed  often  been  said, 
because  the  term  origmal  sin  was  first  used  by  Augustine,  that 
the  doctrine  itself  took  its  origin  with  him ;  although  perfectly 
synonymous  expressions  occur  so  constantly  in  the  writings  of 
the  earlier  Fathers.  Equally  destitute  of  foundation  is  the 
assertion,  so  often  made,  that  Augustine  was  driven  to  his  views 
on  this  subject  by  his  controversy  with  Pelagius.  He  had 
arrived  at  all  the  conclusions  on  which  he  ultimately  rested,  at 
least  ten  years  before  any  controversy  on  the  subject.*  He 
was  led  to  these  results  by  the  study  of  the  Scriptures,  and 
by  his  own  personal  experience.  His  earlier  views  on  the 
intimately  related  doctrines  of  depravity,  ability,  dependence, 
and  grace,  were  all  modified  as  he  became  more  thoroughly 
acquainted  with  the  word  of  God,  and  with  his  own  heart. 
When  he  passed  what  Neander  calls  the  crisis  of  his  religious 
history,  he  saw  clearly  the  depth  of  the  evil  which  existed 
within  him,  and  had  corresponding  views  of  the  necessity  and 
efiicacy  of  the  grace  of  God,  by  which  alone  this  evil  could  be 
removed. 

With  regard  to  Pelagius,  the  case  was  just  the  reverse.  His 
views  of  depravity  being  superficial,  he  had  very  high  ideas  of 
the  ability  of  man,  and  very  low  conceptions  of  the  operations 

*  Neaudtr'a  Gesciiichte  der  Chiistlichen  Religion  und  Kirche,  ii.,  §  3. 


ROMANS  V.  12—21.  297 

of  the  Spirit  of  God.  The  latter,  as  the  author  just  referred  to 
strikingly  retaarks,  was  the  representative  and  champion  of 
"the  general,  moral,  and  religious  consciousness  of  men;"  the 
other,  of  "the  peculiar  nature  of  Christian  consciousness."  A 
doctrine  which  enters  so  much  into  the  experience  of  all  Christ- 
ians, and  which  has  maintained  its  ground  in  all  ages  and 
sections  of  the  Church,  must  have  its  deep  foundations  in  the 
testimony  of  God,  and  the  consciousness  of  men. 

III.  It  is  included  in  the  doctrines  already  stated,  that  man- 
kind have  had  a  fair  probation  in  Adam,  their  head  and  repre- 
sentative ;  and  that  we  are  not  to  consider  God  as  placing  them 
on  their  probation,  in  the  very  first  dawn  of  their  intellectual 
and  moral  existence,  and  under  circumstances  (or  "  a  divine 
constitution")  which  secure  the  certainty  of  their  sinning.  Such 
a  probation  could  hardly  deserve  the  name. 

IV.  It  is  also  included  in  the  doctrine  of  this  portion  of 
Scripture,  that  mankind  is  an  unit,  in  the  sense  in  which  an 
army,  in  distinction  from  a  mob,  is  one ;  or  as  a  nation,  a  com- 
munity, or  a  family,  is  one,  in  opposition  to  a  mere  fortuitous 
collection  of  individuals.  Hence  the  frequent  and  extensive 
transfer  of  the  responsibility  and  consequences  of  the  acts  of 
the  heads  of  these  communities  to  their  several  members,  and 
from  one  member  to  others.  This  is  a  law  which  pervades  the 
whole  moral  government  and  providential  dispensations  of  God. 
We  are  not  like  the  separate  grains  of  wheat  in  a  measure,  but 
links  in  a  complicated  chain.  All  influence  the  destiny  of  each, 
and  each  influences  the  destiny  of  all. 

V.  The  design  of  the  apostle  being  to  illustrate  the  nature 
and  to  confirm  the  certainty  of  our  justification,  it  is  the  leading 
doctrine  of  this  passage,  that  our  acceptance  with  God  is  founded 
neither  on  our  faith  nor  our  good  works,  but  on  the  obedience 
or  righteousness  of  Christ,  which  to  us  is  a  free  gift.  This  is 
the  fundamental  doctrine  of  the  gospel,  vs.  18,  19. 

VI.  The  dreadful  evil  of  sin  is  best  seen  in  the  fall  of  Adam, 
and  in  the  cross  of  Christ.  By  the  one  offence  of  one  man,  what 
a  waste  of  ruin  has  been  spread  over  the  whole  world !  How  far 
beyond  conception  the  misery  that  one  act  occasioned !  There 
was  no  adequate  remedy  for  this  evil  but  the  death  of  the  Son 
of  God,  vs,  12, 15, 16,  &c. 


298  ROMANS  V.  12—21. 

VII.  It  is  the  prerogative  of  God  to  bring  good  out  of  evil, 
and  to  make  the  good  triumph  over  the  evil.  From  the  fall  has 
sprung  redemption,  and  from  redemption  results  which  eternity 
alone  can  disclose,  vs.  20,  21. 

REMAKES. 

1.  Every  man  should  bow  down  before  God,  under  the  humi- 
liating consciousness  that  he  is  a  member  of  an  apostate  race ; 
the  son  of  a  rebellious  parent ;  born  estranged  from  God,  and 
exposed  to  his  displeasure,  vs.  12,  15,  16,  &c. 

2.  Every  man  should  thankfully  embrace  the  means  provided 
for  his  restoration  to  the  Divine  favour,  viz.  "  the  abundance  of 
grace  and  gift  of  righteousness,"  ver.  17. 

3.  Those  that  perish,  perish  not  because  the  sin  of  Adam  has 
brought  them  under  condemnation;  nor  because  no  adequate 
provision  has  been  made  for  their  recovery ;  but  because  they 
will  not  receive  the  offered  mercy,  ver.  17. 

4.  For  those  who  refuse  the  proffered  righteousness  of  Christ, 
and  insist  on  trusting  to  their  own  righteousness,  the  evil  of  sin 
and  God's  determination  to  punish  it,  show  there  can  be  no  rea- 
sonable hope;  while,  for  those  who  humbly  receive  this  gift, 
there  can  be  no  rational  ground  of  fear,  ver.  15. 

5.  If,  without  personal  participation  in  the  sin  of  Adam,  all 
men  are  subject  to  death,  may  we  not  hope  that,  without  per- 
sonal acceptance  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  all  who  die  in 
infancy  are  saved? 

6.  We  should  never  yield  to  temptation  on  the  ground  that 
the  sin  to  which  we  are  solicited  appears  to  be  a  trifle,  (merely 
eating  a  forbidden  fruit ;)  or  that  it  is  but  for  once.  Remember 
the  ONE  offence  of  one  man.  How  often  has  a  man,  or  a  family, 
been  ruined  for  ever  by  one  sin !  ver.  12. 

7.  Our  dependence  on  Jesus  Christ  is  entire,  and  our  obliga- 
tions to  him  are  infinite.  It  is  through  his  righteousness,  with- 
out the  shadow  of  merit  on  our  own  part,  that  we  are  justified. 
He  alone  was  adequate  to  restore  the  ruins  of  the  fall.  From 
those  ruins  he  has  built  up  a  living  temple,  a  habitation  of  God 
through  the  Spirit. 

8.  We  must  experience  the  operation  of  the  law,  in  producing 
the  knowledge  and  conviction  of  sin,  in  order  to  be  prepared 


KOMANS  VI.  1—11.  299 

for  the  appreciation  and  reception  of  the  work  of  Christ.  The 
Church  and  the  world  were  prepared,  by  the  legal  dispensation 
of  the  Old  Testament,  for  the  gracious  dispensation  of  the 
New,  ver.  20. 

9.  We  should  open  our  hearts  to  the  large  prospects  of  purity 
and  blessedness  presented  in  the  gospel ;  the  victory  of  grace 
over  sin  and  death,  which  is  to  be  consummated  in  the  triumph 
of  true  religion,  and  in  the  eternal  salvation  of  those  multitudes 
out  of  every  tribe  and  kindred,  which  no  man  can  number, 
ver.  21. 


CHAPTER    VI. 

CONTENTS. 

As  the  gospel  reveals  the  only  effectual  method  of  justification, 
so  also  it  alone  can  secure  the  sanctification  of  men.  To  exhibit 
this  truth  is  the  object  of  this  and  the  following  chapter.  The 
sixth  is  partly  argumentative,  and  partly  exhortatory.  In 
vs.  1 — 11,  the  apostle  shows  how  unfounded  is  the  objection, 
that  gratuitous  justification  leads  to  the  indulgence  of  sin.  In 
vs.  12 — 23,  he  exhorts  Christians  to  live  agreeably  to  the  nature 
and  design  of  the  gospel;  and  presents  various  considerations 
adapted  to  secure  their  obedience  to  this  exhortation. 


ROMANS   VI.  1—11. 

ANALYSIS. 

The  most  common,  the  most  plausible,  and  yet  the  most 
unfounded  objection  to  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith,  is, 
that  it  allows  men  to  live  in  sin  that  grace  may  abound.  This 
objection  arises  from  ignorance  of  the  doctrine  in  question,  and 
of  the  nature  and  means  of  sanctification.  It  is  so  preposterous 
in  the  eyes  of  an  enlightened  believer,  that  Paul  deals  with  it 
rather  by  exclamations  at  its  absurdity,  than  with  logical  argu- 
ments.   The  main  idea  of  this  section  is,  that  such  is  the  nature 


300  ROMANS  VI.  1,  2. 

of  the  believer's  union  with  Christ,  that  his  living  in  sin  is  not 
merely  an  inconsistency,  but  a  contradiction  in  terms,  as  much 
so  as  to  speak  of  a  live  dead  man,  or  a  good  bad  one.  Union 
with  Christ,  being  the  only  source  of  holiness,  cannot  be  the 
source  of  sin.  In  ver.  1,  the  apostle  presents  the  objection.  In 
ver.  2,  he  declares  it  to  be  unfounded,  and  exclaims  at  its 
absurdity.  In  vs.  3,  4,  he  exhibits  the  true  nature  and  design 
of  Christianity,  as  adapted  and  intended  to  produce  newness  of 
life.  In  vs.  5 — 7,  he  shows  that  such  is  the  nature  of  union 
with  Christ,  that  it  is  impossible  for  any  one  to  share  the  benefits 
of  his  death,  without  being  conformed  to  his  life.  Such  being 
the  case,  he  shows,  vs.  8 — 11,  that  as  Christ's  death  on  account 
of  sin  was  for  once,  never  to  be  repeated,  and  his  life,  a  life 
devoted  to  God;  so  our  separation  from  sin  is  final,  and  our 
life  a  life  consecrated  to  God. 


COMMENTARY. 

Verse  1.  What  shall  we  say  then?  What  inference  is  to  be 
drawn  from  the  doctrine  of  the  gratuitous  acceptance  of  sinners, 
or  justification  without  works,  by  faith  in  the  righteousness  of 
Christ? 

Shall  we  continue  in  sin,  that  grace  may  abound?  i.  e.  be 
more  conspicuously  displayed.  The  form  in  which  the  objection 
to  the  apostle's  doctrine  is  here  presented,  is  evidently  borrowed 
from  the  close  of  the  preceding  chapter.  Paul  had  there  spoken 
of  the  grace  of  the  gospel  being  the  more  conspicuous  and 
abundant,  in  proportion  to  the  evils  which  it  removes.  It  is  no 
fair  inference  from  the  fact  that  God  has  brought  so  much  good 
out  of  the  fall  and  sinfulness  of  men,  that  they  may  continue  in 
sin.  Neither  can  it  be  inferred  from  the  fact  that  he  accepts 
of  sinners  on  the  ground  of  the  merit  of  Christ,  instead  of  their 
own,  (which  is  one  way  in  which  grace  abounds,)  that  they  may 
sin  without  restraint. 

Verse  2.  G-od  forbid,  fj-rj  yivocTo,  let  it  not  be.  Paul's  usual 
mode  of  expressing  denial  and  abhorrence.  Such  an  inference 
is  not  to  be  thought  of.  How  shall  we^  that  are  dead  to  sin,  live 
any  longer  therein?  The  relative  olzci^e::  is  as  usual  causative, 
and  it  stands  first,  for  the  sake  of  emphasis ;  drceMuo/xsu  does 


ROMANS  VI.  2.  301 

not  mean  are  dead,  nor  have  died,  but  died.  It  refers  to  a  spe- 
cific act  in  our  past  history :  '  Since  we  died  to  sin,  how  can  we 
still  live  in  it?'  The  act  which  in  its  nature  was  a  dying  to  sin, 
was  our  accepting  of  Christ  as  our  Saviour.  That  act  involves 
in  it  not  only  a  separation  from  sin,  but  a  deadness  to  it.  No 
man  can  apply  to  Christ  to  be  delivered  from  sin,  in  order  that 
he  may  live  in  it.  Deliverance  from  sin,  as  ofiered  by  Christ, 
and  as  accepted  by  the  believer,  is  not  mere  deliverance  from 
its  penalty,  but  from  its  power.  We  turn  from  sin  to  God  when 
we  receive  Christ  as  a  Saviour.  It  is,  therefore,  as  the  apostle 
argues,  a  contradiction  in  terms,  to  say  that  gratuitous  justifica- 
tion is  a  license  to  sin,  as  much  as  to  say  that  death  is  life,  or 
that  dying  to  a  thing  is  living  in  it.  Instead  of  giving  r^ 
h-napxia  the  usual  force  of  the  dative,  to,  or  as  it  respects,  sin, 
Storr,  Elatt,  and  many  other  commentators,  say  it  should  be 
understood  as  in  v.  15,  xi.  20,  on  account  of.  '  How  shall  we, 
who  in  Christ,  died  on  account  of  sin,  i.  e.  who  sufi'ered  vicari- 
ously its  penalty,  inasmuch  as  we  were  crucified  in  him,  live 
any  longer  therein?' 

In  favour  of  this  interpretation,  it  is  urged,  1.  That  this 
phrase  must  express  the  same  idea  with  the  subsequent  clauses, 
buried  with  him,  ver.  4;  associated  in  his  death,  ver.  5;  dead 
with  Christ,  ver.  8.  2.  That  it  must  have  this  meaning  in 
ver.  10,  where  it  is  said  of  Christ,  he  died  unto  sin,  i.  e.  on 
account  of  sin.  3.  The  other  interpretation,  '  How  shall  we, 
who  have  renounced  sin,  live  any  longer  therein?'  it  is  said,  is 
not  suited  to  the  apostle's  object ;  because  it  does  not  give  any 
adequate  answer  to  the  objection  presented  in  ver.  1.  In  order 
to  answer  that  objection,  it  was  necessary  to  show  not  merely 
that  the  believer  had  renounced  sin,  but  that  the  doctrine  of 
gratuitous  justification  eff"ectually  secures  this  renunciation. 
According  to  the  second  interpretation,  this  answer  is  plain  and 
conclusive :  '  How  shall  we,  who  have  died  on  account  of  sin, 
live  any  longer  therein?  If  we  are  regarded  and  treated  by 
God,  in  virtue  of  our  union  with  Christ,  and  if  we  regard  our- 
selves, as  having  suffered  and  died  with  him  on  account  of  sin, 
we  cannot  but  look  upon  it  as  hateful,  and  deserving  of  punish- 
ment.' 

The  objections  to  this  interpretation,  however,  are  serious. 


302  ROMANS  VI.  3. 

1.  It  is  not  consistent  with  the  common  and  familiar  import  of 
the  expression,  to  he  dead  to  anything^  which  occurs  frequently 
in  the  New  Testament;  as  Gal.  ii.  19,  "dead  to  the  law;" 
1  Pet.  ii.  24,  "dead  to  sins;"  Rom.  vii.  4;  Col.  ii.  20;  Gal. 
vi.  14,  &c.  In  all  cases  the  meaning  is,  to  he  free  from.  Sin 
has  lost  its  power  over  the  believer,  as  sensible  objects  are  not 
able  to  affect  the  dead.  2.  The  opposite  phrase,  to  live  therein., 
requires  this  interpretation.  3.  The  object  of  the  apostle  does 
not  require  that  a  formal,  argumentative  answer  should  be  sup- 
posed to  commence  in  this  verse.  He  simply  denies  the  justice 
of  the  inference  from  his  doctrine,  stated  in  ver.  1,  and  asks 
how  it  is  possible  it  should  be  correct.  How  can  a  Christian, 
which  is  but  another  name  for  a  holy  man,  live  any  longer  in 
sin? 

Verse  3.  Know  ye  not,  that  so  many  of  us  as  were  haptized 
into  Jesus  Christ.,  were  haptized  into  his  death?  In  this  and  the 
following  verse,  we  have  something  more  in  the  form  of  argu- 
ment in  answer  to  the  objection  in  question.  The  apostle 
reminds  his  readers,  that  the  very  design  of  Christianity  was 
to  deliver  men  from  sin;  that  every  one  who  embraced  it, 
embraced  it  for  that  object;  and,  therefore,  it  was  a  contra- 
diction in  terms  to  suppose  that  any  should  come  to  Christ  to 
be  delivered  from  sin,  in  order  that  they  might  live  in  it.  And, 
besides  this,  it  is  clearly  intimated  that  such  is  not  only  the 
design  of  the  gospel,  and  the  object  for  which  it  is  embraced  by 
all  who  cordially  receive  it,  but  also  that  the  result  or  neces- 
sary effect  of  union  with  Christ  is  a  participation  in  the  benefits 
of  his  death.  Or  know  ye  not,  fj  d^voeZre,  or  are  you  ignorant? 
If  any  doubt  what  is  said  in  ver.  2,  he  must  be  ignorant  of  the 
nature  and  design  of  baptism,  and  of  the  relation  to  Christ 
which  it  involves.  Banri^ecv  eci;  always  means  to  haptize  in 
reference  to.  When  it  is  said  that  the  Hebrews  were  baptized 
unto  Moses,  1  Cor.  x.  2 ;  or  when  the  apostle  asks  the  Corinth- 
ians, 'Were  ye  baptized  unto  the  name  of  Paul?'  1  Cor.  i.  13; 
or  when  we  are  said  to  be  baptized  unto  Christ,  the  meaning  is, 
they  were  baptized  in  reference  to  Moses,  Paul,  or  Christ ;  i.  e. 
to  be  brought  into  union  with  them,  as  their  disciples,  or  wor- 
shippers, as  the  case  may  be.  In  like  manner,  in  the  expression 
haptized  into  his  death,  the  preposition  expresses  the  design  and 


ROMANS  VI.  3.  303 

the  result.  The  meaning  therefore  is,  'we  were  baptized  in 
order  that  we  should  die  with  him,'  i.  e.  that  we  should  be  united 
to  him  in  his  death,  and  be  partakers  of  its  benefits.  Thus, 
"baptism  unto  repentance,"  Matt.  iii.  11,  is  baptism  in  order  to 
repentance;  "baptism  unto  the  remission  of  sins,"  Mark  i.  4, 
that  remission  of  sins  may  be  obtained ;  "  baptized  unto  one 
body,"  1  Cor.  xii.  13,  i.  e.  that  we  might  become  one  body,  &c. 
Paul  does  not  design  to  teach  that  the  sacrament  of  baptism, 
from  any  inherent  virtue  in  the  rite,  or  from  any  supernatural 
power  in  him  who  administers  it,  or  from  any  uniformly  attend- 
ing Divine  influence,  always  secures  the  regeneration  of  the 
soul.  This  is  contrary  both  to  Scripture  and  experience.  No 
fact  is  more  obvious  than  that  thousands  of  the  baptized  are 
unregenerate.  It  cannot  be,  therefore,  that  the  apostle  intends 
to  say,  that  all  who  are  baptized  are  thereby  savingly  united  to 
Christ.  It  is  not  of  the  efiicacy  of  baptism  as  an  external  rite, 
that  he  assumes  his  readers  are  well  informed:  it  is  of  the 
import  and  design  of  that  sacrament,  and  the  nature  of  the 
union  with  Christ,  of  which  baptism  is  the  sign  and  the  seal. 
It  is  the  constant  usage  of  Scripture  to  address  professors  as 
believers,  to  predicate  of  them  as  professors  what  is  true  of 
them  only  as  believers.  This  is  also  the  usage  of  common  life. 
We  address  a  company  of  professing  Christians  as  true  Christ- 
ians; we  call  them  brethren  in  Christ;  we  speak  of  them  as 
beloved  of  the  Lord,  partakers  of  the  heavenly  calling,  and  heirs 
of  eternal  life.  Baptism  was  the  appointed  mode  of  professing 
faith  in  Christ,  of  avowing  allegiance  to  him  as  the  Son  of  God, 
and  acquiescence  in  his  gospel.  Those,  therefore,  who  were 
baptized,  are  assumed  to  believe  what  they  professed,  and  to  be 
what  they  declared  themselves  to  be.  They  are  consequently 
addressed  as  believers,  as  having  embraced  the  gospel,  as  having 
put  on  Christ,  and  as  being,  in  virtue  of  their  baptism  as  an  act 
of  faith,  the  children  of  God.  When  a  man  was  baptized  unto 
Christ,  he  was  baptized  unto  his  death ;  he  professed  to  regard 
himself  as  being  united  to  Christ,  as  dying  when  he  died,  as 
bearing  in  him  the  penalty  of  sin,  in  order  that  he  might  be 
reconciled  to  God,  and  live  unto  holiness.  How  could  a  man 
who  was  sincere  in  receiving  baptism,  such  being  its  design  and 
import,  live  in  sin  ?     The  thing  is  impossible.     The  act  of  faith 


804  ROMANS  VI.  4. 

implied  and  expressed  in  baptism,  is  receiving  Christ  as  our 
sanctification  as  well  as  our  righteousness.  "  Extra  controver- 
siam  est,"  says  Calvin,  "induere  nos  Christum  in  baptismo;  et 
hac  lege  nos  baptizari,  ut  unum  cum  ipso  simus."  Baptism, 
therefore,  as  an  act  of  faith,  as  the  formal  reception  of  Christ 
as  our  Saviour,  brings  us  into  intimate  union  with  him :  "  For 
as  many  as  have  been  baptized  unto  Christ,  have  put  on 
Christ."  Gal.  iii.  27.  And  this  baptism  has  special  reference 
to  the  death  of  Christ ;  we  are  baptized  unto  his  death.  That 
is,  we  are  united  to  him  in  death.  His  death  becomes  ours; 
ours  as  an  expiation  for  sin,  as  the  means  of  reconciliation  with 
God,  and  consequently  as  the  means  of  our  sanctification. 
Although  justification  is  the  primary  object  of  the  death  of 
Christ,  yet  justification  is  in  order  to  sanctification.  He  died 
that  he  might  purify  unto  himself  a  peculiar  people,  zealous 
of  good  works.  If  such  is  the  intimate  connection  between  jus- 
tification and  sanctification  in  the  purpose  of  God  in  giving  his 
Son  to  die  for  us,  there  must  be  a  like  intimate  connection 
between  them  in  the  experience  of  the  believer.  The  very  act 
of  faith  by  which  we  receive  Christ  as  the  propitiation  for  sin, 
is  spiritually  a  death  to  sin.  It  is  in  its  very  nature  a  renun- 
ciation of  everything  which  it  was  the  design  of  Christ's  death 
to  destroy.  Every  believer,  therefore,  is  a  saint.  He  renounces 
sin  in  accepting  Christ. 

Verse  4.  Therefore  we  are  buried  with  him  by  baptism  into 
death.  This  is  an  inference  from  ver.  3,  to  confirm  the  proposi- 
tion in  ver.  2,  viz.  that  those  dead  in  sin  cannot  live  therein. 
Therefore^  says  the  apostle,  such  being  the  nature  of  our  union 
with  Christ,  expressed  in  baptism,  it  follows,  that  those  who  are 
baptized  are  buried  with  Christ;  they  are  as  eifectually  shut 
out  from  the  kingdom  of  Satan,  as  those  who  are  in  the  grave 
are  shut  out  from  the  world.  The  words  8ea  zou  ^a7:ri(JfiaT0(; 
gf'c  rbv  ^duarov  go  together ;  by  baptism  unto  death,  i.  e.  by  a 
baptism  which  has  reference  to  Christ's  death,  and  by  which  we 
are  associated  with  him  therein.  We  are  buried  with  him,  i.  e. 
we  are  cut  off  from  the  world  in  and  with  him.  If  the  words 
unto  death  are  connected  with  we  were  buried,  the  sense  would 
be,  we  were  buried  unto  death,  i.  e.  we  were  buried  so  as  to  come 
into  the  power  of  death.     But  this  is  an  incongruous  idea,  and 


ROMANS  VI.  4.  305 

an  unexampled  form  of  expression.  As  in  ver.  3,  tlie  apostle  had 
said  £«c  tbv  d-dvazov  auzotj  i^anziadrjuev,  there  is  no  reason  to 
doubt  that  he  here  designs  to  speak  of  baptism  unto  death. 
Compare  Col.  ii.  12,  "buried  with  him  in  baptism."  The  same 
idea  is  expressed  in  ver.  8,  by  saying  "we  are  dead  with  him," 
and  in  ver.  5,  "we  are  planted  with  him  in  the  likeness  of  his 
death."  It  is  not  necessary  to  assume  that  there  is  any  refer- 
ence here  to  the  immersion  of  the  body  in  baptism,  as  though 
it  were  a  burial.  No  such  allusion  can  be  supposed  in  the  next 
verse,  where  we  are  said  to  be  planted  with  him.  The  reference 
is  not  to  the  mode  of  baptism,  but  to  its  eflFect.  Our  baptism 
unites  us  to  Christ,  so  that  we  died  with  him,  and  rose  with  him. 
As  he  died  to  sin,  so  do  we ;  as  he  rose  to  righteousness  and 
glory,  so  do  we.  The  same  doctrine  concerning  baptism,  and 
of  the  nature  of  union  with  Christ,  therein  expressed,  is  taught 
in  Gal.  iii.  27,  and  Col.  ii.  12. 

That  like  as  Christ  was  raised  up  from  the  dead  by  the  glory 
of  the  Father^  even  so  we  also  should  walk  in  newness  of  life. 
We  die  with  Christ,  in  order  that  we  should  live  with  him.  We 
share  in  his  death,  that  we  may  be  partakers  of  his  life.  Justi- 
fication is  in  order  to  sanctification.  The  two  are  inseparable. 
There  can  be  no  participation  in  Christ's  life  without  a  partici- 
pation in  his  death,  and  we  cannot  enjoy  the  benefits  of  his 
death  unless  we  are  partakers  of  the  power  of  his  life.  We 
must  be  reconciled  to  God  in  order  to  be  holy,  and  we  cannot 
be  reconciled  without  thereby  becoming  holy.  Antinomianism, 
or  the  doctrine  that  the  benefits  of  the  atonement  can  be 
enjoyed  without  experiencing  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
is  therefore  contrary  to  the  very  nature  and  design  of  redemp- 
tion. As  Christ  died  and  rose  again  literally,  so  his  people  die 
and  rise  spiritually.  As  Christ's  resurrection  was  the  certain 
consequence  of  his  death,  so  is  a  holy  life  the  certain  con- 
sequence of  our  dying  with  Christ.  There  is  not  only  an 
analogy  between  Christ's  literal  death  and  resurrection,  and  the 
spiritual  death  and  resurrection  of  the  believer,  but  there  is  a 
causal  relation  between  the  two.  The  death  and  resurrection 
of  Christ  render  certain  the  justification  and  sanctification  of 
his  people.  Paul  says  Christ  rose,  dca  ziji;  do^rj^  zoo  ITdzpo^, 
by  the  glory  of  the  Father,  ^bia,  glory,  is  the  excellence 
20 


B06  ROMANS  VI.  5. 

of  God,  the  sum  of  all  his  perfections,  or  any  one  perfection 
specially  manifested.  The  exhibition,  therefore,  of  God's  holi- 
ness, or  of  his  mercy,  or  of  his  power,  is  equally  an  exhibition 
of  his  glory.  Here  the  reference  is  to  his  omnipotence,  which 
was  gloriously  displayed  in  the  resurrection  of  Christ.  In 
1  Cor.  vi.  14,  and  2  Cor.  xiii.  4,  it  is  said  Christ  was  raised, 
ex  nuudfieax;  deou,  hy  the  power  of  Giod.  In  Col.  i.  11,  the 
apostle  refers  the  sanctification  of  believers  to  the  xpdroz  rrjz 
on^Tji;  6eoo,  to  the  power  of  his  glory.  It  is  according  to  the 
analogy  of  Scripture,  that  the  same  event  is  attributed  at  one 
time  to  the  efficiency  of  the  Father,  and  at  another  to  that  of 
the  Son.  Christ  rose  from  the  dead  by  his  own  power.  He 
had  power  to  lay  down  his  life,  and  he  had  power  to  take  it 
again.  This  is  perfectly  consistent  with  the  apostle's  declara- 
tion, that  he  was  raised  by  the  power  of  God.  The  three  per- 
sons of  the  Trinity  are  one  God.  The  efficiency  of  the  Father 
is  also  the  efficiency  of  the  Son.  What  the  Father  does,  the 
Son  also  does.  That  we  should  walk  in  newness  of  life,  iu 
xoup6t7^t{  ^co^i;.  The  idea  of  purity  is  associated  with  that  of 
newness  in  the  word  of  God — a  new  heart,  a  new  creature,  the 
7iew  man.  Newness  of  life  is  a  life  that  is  new,  compared  with 
what  is  natural  and  original ;  and  it  is  a  holy  life,  springing 
from  a  new  source.  It  is  not  we  that  live,  but  Christ  that 
liveth  in  us;  and  therefore  our  life  is,  in  its  manifestations, 
analogous  to  his.     His  people  are  like  him. 

Verse  5.  For  if  we  have  been  planted  together  in  the  likeness 
of  his  death,  we  shall  be  also  in  the  likeness  of  his  resurrection. 
This  is  a  confirmation  of  what  precedes.  We  shall  walk  in 
newness  of  life,  if  we  are  partakers  of  Christ's  death,  for  com- 
munity of  death  involves  community  of  life.  The  general 
meaning  of  the  verse  is  plain,  although  there  is  doubt  as  to  the 
force  of  some  of  the  words,  and  as  to  the  construction.  First, 
as  to  the  words.  Calvin  and  many  others  render  au[i(pozo(; 
insitus,  inserted,  engrafted,  as  though  it  were  derived  from 
(puTsuo).  It  is,  however,  from  <fua),  which  means  both  to  bear 
and  to  grow.  Hence  aufxforoQ  sometimes  means  born  with,  in 
the  sense  of  innate;  sometimes  it  expresses  community  of 
origin,  or  nature,  in  the  sense  of  cognate,  congenial ;  and  some- 
times it  is  used  in  reference  to  things  born  or  produced  at  the 


ROMANS  VI.  5.  307 

same  time.  From  the  other  meaning  of  the  word  (p'jio,  come 
the  senses  growing  with,  overgrown  with,  &c.  In  all  cases  there 
is  the  idea  of  intimate  union,  and  that  is  the  idea  which  the 
word  is  here  intended  to  express.  As  to  the  construction,  so 
far  as  the  first  clause  of  the  verse  is  concerned,  we  may  connect 
abynpuxoi  with  bixouoiiazc,  we  have  grown  together  in  death,  i.  e. 
been  united  in  a  like  death;  or  we  may  supply  the  words  rip 
Xf)c<TT(p,  we  have  been  united  toith  Christ,  as  to,  or  by,  simi- 
larity of  death.  The  former,  as  it  requires  nothing  to  be  sup- 
plied, is  to  be  preferred.  In  the  second  clause,  the  word 
bfioccoTatt  may  be  supplied,  as  in  our  version:  we  shall  be 
(united)  in  the  likeness  of  his  resurrection.  But  as  aumporoQ 
may  be  construed  with  the  genitive  as  well  as  the  dative,  many 
commentators  unite  aufxipuxot  r^c  dvaardato)^  iao/ie^a,  we  shall 
partake  of  the  resurrection.  The  sense  is  the  same:  if  united 
in  death,  we  shall  be  united  in  life ;  if  we  die  with  him,  we  shall 
live  with  him.  The  future  iao/ie&a  does  not  here  express  obli- 
gation, nor  futurity.  The  reference  is  not  to  what  is  to  happen 
hereafter,  but  to  the  certainty  of  sequence,  or  causal  connection. 
If  the  one  thing  happens,  the  other  shall  certainly  follow.  The 
doctrine  of  this  passage  is  not  simply  that  the  believer  dies  and 
rises,  as  Christ  died  and  rose ;  that  there  is  an  analogy  between 
his  death  and  theirs ;  but,  as  before  remarked,  the  main  idea  is, 
the  necessary  connection  between  the  death  and  resurrection  of 
Christ  and  the  death  and  resurrection  of  his  people.  Such  is 
the  union  between  them  and  him,  that  his  death  and  resurrec- 
tion render  theirs  a  matter  of  necessity.  The  life  or  death 
of  a  tree  necessitates  the  life  or  death  of  the  branches.  Says 
Calvin,  "Insitio,  non  tantum  exempli  conformitatem  designat, 
sed  arcanam  conjunctionem  per  quam  cum  ipso  coaluimus,  ita 
ut"  nos  Spiritu  suo  vegetans  ejus  virtutem  in  nos  transfundat. 
Ergo  ut  surculus  communem  habet  vitge  et  mortis  conditionem 
cum  arbore  in  quam  insertus  est ;  ita  vitge  Christi  non  minus 
quam  et  mortis  participes  nos  esse  consentaneum  est."  That 
the  resurrection  here  spoken  of  is  a  spiritual  rising  from  the 
dead,  seems  plain,  both  from  what  precedes  and  from  what 
follows.  The  whole  discussion  relates  to  sanctification,  to  the 
necessary  connection  between  the  death  of  Christ  as  an  atone- 
ment for  sin,  and  the  holiness  of  his  people.     Those  who  are 


308  ROMANS  YI.  6. 

cleansed  from  the  guilt  of  sin,  are  cleansed  also  from  its  pollu- 
tion. Although  this  is  obvious,  yet  all  reference  to  the  future 
resurrection  of  the  body  is  not  to  be  excluded.  In  chap.  viii.  11, 
the  apostle  represents  the  quickening  of  our  mortal  bodies  as  a 
necessary  consequence  of  our  union  with  Christ,  and  the  indwell- 
ing of  his  Spirit.  If,  therefore,  we  are  baptized  unto  the  death 
of  Christ,  united  and  conformed  to  him  in  his  death,  the  sure 
result  will  be,  that  we  shall  be  conformed  to  him  in  a  holy  life 
here,  and  in  a  life  of  glorious  immortality  of  the  soul  and  body 
hereafter.  All  this  is  included  in  the  life  which  flows  to  us 
from  Christ. 

Verse  6.  Knowing  this,  that  our  old  man  is  crucified  with 
him,  &c.  What  in  the  preceding  verses  is  represented  as  the 
consequence  of  our  union  with  Christ  as  a  matter  of  doctrine,  is 
here  presented  as  a  matter  of  experience.  We  are  united  to 
Christ  as  our  head  and  representative,  so  as  to  be  partakers  of 
his  death  and  resurrection,  as  a  matter  of  law  or  of  right. 
What  is  thus  done,  as  it  were,  out  of  ourselves,  is  attended  by 
an  analogous  spiritual  experience.  This  knowing,  i.  e.  expe- 
riencing this.  Our  inward  experience  agrees  with  this  doctrinal 
statement.  Our  old  man,  that  is,  our  corrupt  nature  as  opposed 
to  the  new  man,  or  holy  nature,  which  is  the  product  of  rege- 
neration, and  the  eflFect  of  our  union  with  Christ.  In  Eph. 
iv.  22,  24,  we  are  exhorted  to  put  off  the  old  man,  and  to  put 
on  the  new  man.  Col.  iii.  8,  9.  The  Scriptures  everywhere 
assert  or  assume  the  fall  and  native  depravity  of  man.  We  are 
born  the  children  of  wrath.  We  are  aliens  from  the  common- 
wealth of  Israel,  without  God,  and  without  hope.  This  is  the 
inward  state  and  outward  condition  in  which  every  man  comes 
into  the  world.  Through  the  redemption  that  is  in  Christ,  a 
radical  change  is  effected;  old  things  pass  away,  all  things 
become  new.  The  old  man,  the  nature  which  is  prior  in  the 
order  of  time,  as  well  as  corrupt,  is  crucified,  and  a  nature  new 
and  holy  is  induced.  The  word  man  is  used,  because  it  is  no 
one  disposition,  tendency,  or  faculty  that  is  changed,  but  the 
man  himself;  the  radical  principle  of  his  being,  the  self.  Hence 
Paul  uses  the  pronoun  I — ^"I  am  sold  under  sin;"  "I  cannot 
do  the  things  that  I  would."  It  is  plain  from  this  whole  repre- 
sentation, that  regeneration  is  not  merely  a  change  of  acts,  or 


ROMANS  VI.  6.  309 

of  the  affections  in  distinction  from  the  understanding,  but  a 
change  of  the  whole  man.  Another  thing  is  also  plain,  viz.  that 
such  a  radical  change  of  nature  cannot  fail  to  manifest  itself  in 
a  holy  walk  and  conversation.  This  is  what  Paul  here  insists 
upon.  To  the  believer  who  knows  that  the  old  man  is  crucified 
with  Christ,  the  objection  that  gratuitous  justification  leads  to 
licentiousness,  is  contradictory  and  absurd.  The  old  man  is 
said  to  be  crucified,  not  because  the  destruction  of  the  principle 
of  sin  is  a  slow  and  painful  process,  but  because  Christ's  death 
was  by  crucifixion,  in  which  death  we  were  associated,  and 
because  it  is  from  him,  as  crucified,  the  death  of  sin  in  us  pro- 
ceeds. "  Hunc  veterem  hominem  dicit  esse  affixum  cruci  Christi, 
quia  ejus  virtute  conficitur.  Ac  nominatim  allusit  ad  crucem, 
quo  expressius  indicaret  non  aliunde  nos  mortificari,  quam  ex 
ejus  mortis  participatione." 

Tliat  the  body  of  sin  might  be  destroyed.  "The  body  of  sin" 
is  only  another  name  for  "the  old  man,"  or  rather  for  its  con- 
crete form.  The  design  of  our  crucifixion  with  Christ  is  the 
destruction  of  the  old  man,  or  the  body  of  sin ;  and  the  design 
of  the  destruction  of  the  inward  power  or  principle  of  evil,  is 
our  spiritual  freedom.  This  latter  idea  the  apostle  expresses 
by  saying,  that  henceforth  we  should  not  serve  sin,  i.  e.  be  in 
bondage  to  it.  The  service  of  sin  is  a  doukca,  a  slavery,  a  state 
from  which  we  cannot  free  ourselves ;  a  power  which  coerces 
obedience  in  despite  of  the  resistance  of  reason,  conscience,  and 
as  the  apostle  teaches,  even  of  the  will.  It  is  a  bondage  from 
which  we  can  be  delivered  in  no  other  way  than  by  the  death 
of  the  inward  principle  of  evil  which  possesses  our  nature,  and 
lies  back  of  the  will,  beyond  the  reach  of  our  power,  and  which 
can  be  destroyed  only  by  union  with  Christ  in  his  death,  who 
died  for  this  very  purpose,  that  he  might  deliver  us  from  the 
bondage  of  corruption,  and  introduce  us  into  the  glorious  liberty 

of  the  sons  of  God.    Compare  John  viii.  34 ;  Heb.  ii.  14 16. 

Although  the  general  sense  of  this  verse  is  thus  plain,  there  is 
great  diversity  of  opinion  as  to  the  precise  meaning  of  the  words 
oio^a  TTJc:  d.fiapua<:,  body  of  sin.  1.  Some  say  it  means  the 
sinful  body,  that  is,  the  body  which  is  the  seat  and  source  of 
sin.  But  it  is  not  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible,  that  sin  has  its 
source  in  matter ;  it  is  spiritual  in  its  nature  and  origin.     The 


810  ROMANS  VI.  7. 

body  is  not  its  source,  but  its  instrument  and  slave.  Moreover, 
the  design  of  Christ's  death  is  never  said  to  be  to  destroy  the 
body.  2.  Others  say  that  aa>iia  means  the  physical  body,  not 
as  the  source,  but  as  the  appurtenance  of  sin,  as  belonging  to 
it,  and  ruled  by  it.  But  this  is .  subject  in  part  to  the  same 
objection.  3.  Others  say  that  a&fxa  means  mass,  "the  mass 
of  sin."  "Corpus  peccati,"  says  Calvin,  "non  carnem  et  ossa, 
sed  massam  designat ;  homo  enim  naturae  propriae  relictus  massa 
est  ex  peccato  conflata."  4.  Others  assume  that  ao)[j.a  has  the 
same  sense  as  adp^,  corrupt  nature;  so  that  "body  of  sin" 
means  our  "sinful,  carnal  nature."  This  no  doubt  is  the  idea, 
but  it  is  not  expressed  by  the  word  aa)[jia,  which  is  not  equiva- 
lent to  adp^.  5.  Others  take  acona,  in  accordance  with  the 
Rabinical  use  of  the  corresponding  Hebrew  word,  to  mean 
essence,  or  substance;  for  which,  however,  there  is  no  authority 
from  the  usus  loquendi  of  the  Scriptures.  6.  Perhaps  the  most 
satisfactory  view  is  that  of  those  who  understand  the  phrase  as 
figurative.  Sin  is  personified.  It  is  something  that  has  life,  is 
obeyed ;  that  can  be  put  to  death.  It  is  represented  as  a  bodi/, 
or  organism ;  as  having  its  members.  Compare  Col.  iii.  5.  In 
Col.  ii.  11,  the  apostle  speaks  of  putting  off  "  the  body  of  the 
sins  of  the  flesh,"  by  which  he  means  the  totality  of  our  corrupt 
nature.  So  here,  "the  body  of  sin,"  is  sin  considered  as  a 
body,  as  something  which  can  be  crucified. 

Verse  7.  For  he  that  is  dead  is  free  from  sin.  The  Greek 
here  is,  6  yap  dTcod^auajv  dedixauozai  and  zr^^  d-ptapzia^,  for  he 
who  has  died  is  justified  from  sin.  The  particle  yap,  for,  shows 
that  this  verse  is  a  confirmation  of  what  precedes :  '  The  believer 
(he  who  is  by  faith  united  to  Christ  in  his  death)  cannot  any 
longer  serve  sin,  for  he  who  has  died  is  justified  from  sin.'  The 
word  d.7to&avcov  may  be  taken  in  a  physical,  a  moral,  or  a  mys- 
tical sense.  If  in  a  physical  sense,  then  the  meaning  is,  that 
death  frees  from  sin.  This  may  be  understood  in  two  ways : 
first,  on  the  theory  that  the  body  is  the  source  of  sin,  death,  or 
freedom  from  the  body,  involves  freedom  from  sin ;  or,  secondly, 
death  considered  as  a  penalty,  is  the  expiation  of  sin ;  so  that 
he  who  dies,  is  judicially  free  from  sin.  Some  who  adopt  this 
interpretation,  suppose  that  the  apostle  sanctions  the  unscrip- 
tural  Jewish  doctrine,  (see  Eisenmenger's  Entdeckt.  Judenthum, 


ROMANS  YL  7.  311 

II.,  p.  283,)  that  death  is  the  full  penalty  of  sin,  and  therefore 
its  expiation.  Others  say  he  is  to  be  understood  as  speaking 
only  of  sin  or  guilt  in  relation  to  human  law :  '  He  who  has 
died  for  his  crime  is  free  from  guilt  or  further  liability.'  In 
either  way,  the  only  relation  which  this  verse,  when  understood 
of  physical  death,  can  have  to  the  apostle's  argument,  is  that 
of  an  illustration :  'As  the  man  who  has  suffered  for  his  crime 
is  freed  from  it,  so  he  who  is  crucified  with  Christ  is  free  from 
sin.  In  either  case  the  power  of  sin  is  destroyed.'  If  the  moral 
sense  of  the  word  be  adopted,  then  the  meaning  is  either,  '  he 
who  is  spiritually  dead  is  free  from  sin,'  (which  amounts  to 
saying,  'he  that  is  holy  is  holy;')  or,  'he  who  is  spiritually 
dead  is  justified  from  sin.'  But  this  last  sense  is  utterly 
unsuited  to  the  context,  and  implies  that  spiritual  death,  or 
holiness,  is  the  ground  of  justification ;  which  is  contrary  to  all 
Scripture,  and  especially  to  Paul's  doctrine.  The  mystical  sense 
of  the  word  is  the  only  one  consistent  with  the  context.  The 
apostle  has  not  been  speaking  of  natural  death,  but  of  death 
with  Christ;  of  the  believer  being  crucified  with  him.  It  is  of 
that  he  is  now  speaking.  He  had  just  said  that  the  believer 
cannot  continue  to  serve  sin.  He  here  gives  the  reason:  for 
he  who  has  died  (with  Christ)  is  justified,  and  therefore  free 
from  sin,  free  from  its  dominion.  This  is  the  great  evangelical 
truth  which  underlies  the  apostle's  whole  doctrine  of  sanctifica- 
tion.  The  natural  reason  assumes  that  acceptance  with  a  holy 
and  just  God  must  be  founded  on  character,  that  men  must  be 
holy  in  order  to  be  justified.  The  gospel  reverses  this,  and 
teaches  that  God  accepts  the  ungodly;  that  we  must  be  justi- 
fied in  order  to  become  holy.  This  is  what  Paul  here  assumes 
as  known  to  his  readers.  As  justification  is  the  necessary 
means,  and  antecedent  to  holiness,  he  that  is  justified  becomes 
holy;  he  cannot  live  m  sin.  And  he  who  is  dead,  i.  e.  with 
Christ,  (for  it  is  only  his  death  that  secures  justification,)  is  jus- 
tified from  sin.  To  he  justified  from  sin  means  to  be  delivered 
from  sin  by  justification.  And  that  deliverance  is  twofold; 
judicial  deliverance  from  its  penalty,  and  subjective  deliverance 
from  its  power.  Both  are  secured  by  justification ;  the  former 
directly,  the  other  consequentially,  as  a  necessary  sequence. 
Compare  Gal.  ii.  19,  20,  vi.  14;  Col.  ii.  13,  iii.  3;  1  Pet.  iv.  1, 


312  ROMANS  YL  8. 

and  other  passages  in  which  the  sanctification  of  believers  is 
represented  as  secured  by  the  death  of  Christ. 

Verses  8 — 11.  These  verses  contain  the  application  of  the 
truth  taught  in  the  preceding  passage :  '  If  we  are  dead  with 
Christ,  we  shall  share  in  his  life.  If  he  lives,  we  shall  live  also. 
As  his  life  is  perpetual,  it  secures  the  continued  supplies  of  life 
to  all  his  members.  Death  has  no  more  any  dominion  over 
him.  Having  died  unto,  or  on  account  of,  sin  once,  he  now  ever 
lives  to,  and  with  God.  His  people,  therefore,  must  be  con- 
formed to  him;  dead  indeed  unto  sin,  but  alive  unto  God.' 
This  passage  does  not  contain  a  mere  comparison  between  the 
literal  death  and  resurrection  of  Christ,  and  the  spiritual  death 
and  resurrection  of  believers,  but  it  exhibits  the  connection 
between  the  death  and  life  of  the  Redeemer  and  the  sanctifica- 
tion of  his  people. 

Verse  8.  Now,  if  we  he  dead  with  Christ,  &c.  If  the  truth 
stated  in  the  preceding  verses  be  admitted,  viz.  that  our  union 
with  Christ  is  such  that  his  death  secures  our  deliverance  from 
the  penalty  and  power  of  sin,  we  believe  we  shall  also  live  with 
him.  That  is,  we  are  sure  that  the  consequences  of  his  death 
are  not  merely  negative,  i.  e.  not  simply  deliverance  from  evil, 
moral  and  physical,  but  also  a  participation  in  his  life.  We 
believe,  i.  e.  we  have  a  confidence,  founded  on  the  promise  and 
revealed  purpose  of  God.  It  is  not  a  conclusion  of  reason ;  it 
is  not  simply  a  hope,  a  peradventure ;  it  is  a  faith,  an  assured 
conviction  that  God,  after  having  justified  us  through  the  blood 
of  Christ,  will  not  leave  us  spiritually  defiled.  We  shall  live, 
aoC^aofjieu,  the  future,  referring  not  to  what  is  to  happen  here- 
after, but  to  what  is  the  certain  consequence  of  our  union  with 
Christ.  If  we  are  united  mystically  with  Christ  in  his  death, 
we  shall  certainly  live  with  him,  i.  e.  we  shall  certainly  partake 
of  his  life.  As,  however,  this  life  is  a  permanent  and  eternal 
life,  as  it  pertains  to  the  body  as  well  as  to  the  soul,  a  partici- 
pation of  his  life  now  involves  a  participation  of  it,  with  all  its 
glorious  consequences,  for  ever.  To  live  with  Christ,  therefore, 
includes  two  ideas ;  association  with  him,  and  similarity  to  him. 
We  partake  of  his  life,  and  consequently  our  life  is  like  his. 
In  like  manner,  since  we  die  with  him,  we  die  as  he  died.  So, 
too,  when  we  are  said  to  reign  with  him,  to  be  glorified  together, 


ROMANS  VI.  9.  313 

both  these  ideas  are  included;  see  chap.  viii.  17,  and  many 
similar  passages.  The  life  here  spoken  of  is  that  "eternal  life" 
which  believers  are  said  to  possess  even  in  this  world ;  see  John 
iii.  36,  V,  24 ;  and  which  is  manifested  here  by  devotion  to  God, 
and  hereafter  in  the  purity  and  blessedness  of  heaven.  It 
includes,  therefore,  all  the  consequences  of  redemption.  We 
are  not  to  consider  the  apostle  as  merely  running  a  parallel 
between  the  natural  death  and  resurrection  of  Christ,  and  the 
spiritual  death  and  resurrection  of  his  people,  as  has  already 
been  remarked,  but  as  showing  that,  in  consequence  of  union  to 
him  in  his  death,  we  must  die  as  he  died,  and  live  as  he  lives. 
That  is,  that  the  effect  of  his  death  is  to  destroy  the  power  of 
sin;  and  the  result  of  his  living  is  the  communication  and  pre- 
servation of  Divine  life  to  all  who  are  connected  with  him.  This 
being  the  case,  the  objection  stated  in  ver,  1  of  this  chapter,  is 
seen  to  be  entirely  unfounded.  This  life  of  Christ,  to  which  we 
are  conformed,  is  described  in  the  following  verses,  first  as  per- 
petual, and  secondly,  as  devoted  unto  God. 

Verse  9.  Knowing  that  Ohrist,  being  raised  from  the  dead, 
dieth  no  more.  Knowing  ecdore^  is  either  equal  to  xa'c  ol'da/iev, 
and  we  know^  thus  introducing  a  new  idea,  or  it  is  causal, 
because  we  know.  The  latter  is  to  be  preferred.  We  are  sure 
we  shall  be  partakers  of  the  life  of  Christ,  because  we  know 
that  he  lives.  Were  he  not  a  living  Saviour,  if  his  life  were  not 
perpetual,  he  could  not  be  the  source  of  life  to  his  people  in  all 
ages.     The  perpetuity  of  Christ's  life,  therefore,  is  presented, 

1.  As  the  ground  of  assurance  of  the  perpetuity  of  the  life  of 
believers.  We  shall  partake  of  the  life  of  Christ,  i.  e.  of  the 
spiritual  and  eternal  blessings  of  redemption,  because  he  ever 
lives  to  make  intercession  for  us,  and  to  grant  us  those  supplies 
of  grace  which  we  need ;  see  chap.  v.  10 ;  John  xiv.  19 ;  1  Cor. 
XV.  23,  &c.  As  death  has  no  more  dominion  over  him,  there  is 
no  ground  of  apprehension  that  our  supplies  of  life  will  be  cut 
off.  This  verse,  therefore,  is  introduced  as  the  ground  of  the 
declaration,  "we  shall  live  with  him,"  at  the  close  of  ver,  8. 

2.  The  perpetuity  of  the  life  of  Christ  is  one  of  the  points  in 
which  our  life  is  to  be  conformed  to  his,  Christ  dieth  no  more, 
death  hath  no  more  dominion  over  him.  This  repetition  is  for 
the  sake  of  emphasis.     Christ's  subjection  to  death  was  volun- 


314  ROMANS  YL  10. 

tary.  It  was  not  from  a  necessity  of  nature,  nor  from  any 
obligation  to  justice.  He  laid  down  his  life  of  himself.  He 
voluntarily  submitted  to  death  for  our  sakes,  and  was  the 
master  of  death  even  in  dying ;  and  therefore  he  is,  so  to  speak, 
in  no  danger  of  ever  being  subject  to  its  power.  The  object  of 
his  voluntary  submission  to  death  having  been  accomplished,  he 
lives  for  evermore.  This  is  more  fully  expressed  in  the  follow- 
ing verse. 

Verse  10.  For  in  that  Tie  died,  he  died  unto  sin  once,  &c. 
He  can  never  die  again,  for  in  dying  he  died  once  for  all.  By 
the  one  offering  of  himself,  he  has  for  ever  perfected  them  that 
are  sanctified.  The  apostle,  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
while  arguing  to  show  the  necessity  of  the  death  of  Christ  as  a 
sacrifice  for  sin,  argues  also  to  show  that  such  was  the  efiicacy 
of  that  sacrifice,  it  need  not,  and  cannot  be  repeated.  Heb. 
vii.  27,  ix.  12,  x.  10 ;  1  Pet.  iii.  18. 

In  that  he  died,  6  d.nid-avt;  6  may  be  taken  absolutely,  quod 
attinet  ad  id,  quod,  as  to  that  he  died,  so  far  as  concerns  his 
dying ;  compare  Gal.  ii.  20 ;  or  the  relative  may  be  taken  as 
the  object,  the  death  he  died.  See  Winer,  III.,  §  24.  4.  2.  He 
died  unto  sin,  t^  h-iiapxia  dned-avev,  so  far  as  the  words  are  con- 
cerned, admits  of  different  interpretations.  It  may  mean,  he 
died /or  the  destruction  of  sin;  or,  he  died  for  its  expiation,  i.  e. 
on  account  of  sin ;  or,  in  accordance  with  the  force  of  the  same 
words  in  ver.  2,  and  the  analogous  expression,  vtxpohiz  ttj 
b-iiapzia,  dead  to  sin,  ver.  11,  he  died  as  to  sin,  was  by  death 
freed  from  sin.  In  this  last  sense,  although  the  words  are  the 
same,  the  idea  is  very  different  in  the  two  cases.  The  believer 
dies  to  sin  in  one  sense,  Christ  in  another.  In  both  cases  the 
idea  of  separation  is  expressed ;  but  in  the  case  of  the  believer, 
it  is  separation  from  personal,  indwelling  sin ;  in  that  of  Christ, 
it  is  separation  from  the  burden  of  his  people's  sin,  which  he 
bore  upon  the  cross.  The  context  and  the  argument  favour  this 
last  interpretation.  Death  has  no  more  dominion  over  Christ, 
for  he  died  to  sin ;  by  the  one  sacrifice  of  himself,  he  freed  him- 
self from  the  burden  of  sin  which  he  had  voluntarily  assumed. 
The  law  is  perfectly  satisfied;  it  has  no  further  penalty  to 
inflict.  Of  course  the  same  truth  or  doctrine  is  expressed,  if  the 
other  expositions  of  the  phrase  be  preferred.     It  is  only  a 


ROMANS  VI.  11.  .         315 

question  as  to  the  form  in  which  the  same  general  truth  is  pre- 
sented. Christ's  death  was  for  the  destruction  of  sin,  for  its 
expiation ;  and  it  was  a  deliverance  from  it,  i.  e.  from  the  burden 
of  its  imputed  guilt.  He  came  the  first  time  with  sin ;  he  is  to 
come  the  second  time  witJiout  sin  (without  that  burden,)  unto 
salvation.  In  that  he  liveth,  he  liveth  unto  Crod.  This  is  said 
in  contrast  to  what  precedes.  He  died  unto  sin,  he  lives  unto 
God.  So  must  the  believer.  Death  must  be  followed  by  life ; 
the  one  is  in  order  to  the  other.  It  is  of  course  not  implied  that 
our  Lord's  life  on  earth  was  not  a  living  unto  God,  i.  e.  a  living 
having  God  for  its  end  and  object.  The  antithetical  expression 
is  used  simply  to  indicate  the  analogy  between  Christ  and  his 
people.  They  must  be  freed  from  sin,  and  be  devoted  to  God, 
because  their  Lord  and  Saviour,  in  whose  death  and  life  they 
share,  died  unto  sin,  and  lives  unto  God.  Many  of  the  Fathers, 
and  some  later  interpreters,  take  T(p  6£(p  as  equivalent  to  r^ 
dupd/iec  TOO  deou,  by  the  power  of  Grod.  But  this  is  unsuited  to 
the  connection.  It  is  not  the  source  of  Christ's  life,  but  the 
nature  of  it,  as  perpetual  and  holy,  that  the  apostle  would  bring 
into  view.  Olshausen  says  ra>  OsuT  means  for  Grod,  i.  e.  for 
righteousness,  as  opposed  to  sin,  in  the  first  clause :  "  He  died 
for  the  destruction  of  sin,  he  lives  for  the  promotion  of  right- 
eousness." But  this  is  unnecessary,  and  inconsistent  with  the 
context. 

Verse  11.  Likewise  reckon  ye  also  yourselves  to  he  dead 
indeed  unto  sin,  hut  alive  unto  Grod,  &c.  What  is  true  in  itself, 
should  be  true  in  their  convictions  and  consciousness.  If  in 
point  of  fact  believers  are  partakers  of  the  death  and  life  of 
Christ;  if  they  die  with  him,  and  live  with  him,  then  they 
should  so  regard  themselves.  They  should  receive  this  truth, 
with  all  its  consoling  and  sanctifying  power,  into  their  hearts, 
and  manifest  it  in  their  lives.  So  also  ye,  ouva)  xat  Ofjiel^,  a 
point  may  be  placed  after  (j/isTc;  so  that  the  sense  is,  so  also  are 
ye,  as  is  done  by  Griesbach  and  others.  The  simpler  and  more 
common  method  is  to  read  the  words  continuously:  so  also 
regard  ye  yourselves  as  dead  to  sin,  vsTtpolx;  vrj  kixapria ;  not 
reckon  yourselves  to  he  dead,  as  the  word  tlvax,  although  found 
in  the  common  text,  is  omitted  by  almost  all  the  critical  editors, 
on  the  authority  of  the  oldest  manuscripts,  and  the  sense  is 


316        .  ROMANS  VI.  1—11. 

complete  without  it ;  ^.oyc^ea^ac  rtvd  rt,  means  to  regard  07ie  as 
something.  Believers  are  to  look  upon  themselves  in  their  true 
light,  viz.  as  dead  to  sin,  freed  from  its  penalty  and  dominion. 
This  is  a  freedom  which  belongs  to  them  as  believers,  and  there- 
fore the  apostle  adds,  kv  XpcaT(p  ' Irjadb,  not  through,  but  in 
Christ  Jesus,  that  is,  in  virtue  of  union  with  him.  These  words 
belong  equally  to  both  clauses  of  this  verse.  It  is  in  Christ  that 
the  believer  is  dead  to  sin,  and  alive  to  God.  The  old  man  is 
crucified ;  the  new  man,  the  soul  as  renewed,  is  imbued  with  a 
new  life,  of  which  God  is  the  object;  which  consists  in  fellow- 
ship with  him,  and  which  is  manifested  by  devotion  to  his 
service,  and  by  obedience  to  his  will.  The  words  our  Lord, 
T(p  Kupi(j)  "rjfxoiv,  are  not  found  in  the  best  manuscripts. 

DOCTRINE. 

1.  Truth  cannot  lead  to  unholiness.  If  a  doctrine  encourages 
sin,  it  must  be  false,  vs.  1,  2, 

2.  There  can  be  no  greater  contradiction  and  absurdity  than 
for  one  who  lives  in  sin  to  claim  to  be  a  Christian,  ver.  2. 

3.  Antinomianism  is  not  only  an  error,  it  is  a  falsehood  and 
a  slander.  It  pronounces  valid  the  very  objection  against  the 
gospel  which  Paul  pronounces  a  contradiction  and  absurdity, 
and  which  he  evidently  regards  as  a  fatal  objection,  were  it  well 
founded,  vs.  2 — 4,  &c. 

4.  Baptism  includes  a  profession  of  the  religion  taught  by 
him  in  whose  name  we  are  baptized,  and  an  obligation  to  obey 
his  laws,  vs.  3,  4. 

5.  The  grand  design  of  Christianity  is  the  destruction  of  sin. 
When  sincerely  embraced,  therefore,  it  is  with  a  view  to  this 
end,  ver.  3. 

6.  The  source  of  the  believer's  holiness  is  his  union  with 
Christ,  by  which  his  reconciliation  to  God,  and  his  participation 
of  the  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit  are  secured,  vs.  4,  6. 

7.  The  fact  that  Christ  lives,  renders  it  certain  that  his  people 
shall  live  in  holiness  here,  and  in  glory  hereafter,  ver.  8. 

8.  The  only  proper  evidence  that  we  are  partakers  of  the 
benefits  of  the  death  and  life  of  Christ,  is  our  dying  to  sin,  and 
living  to  God,  ver.  11. 


ROMANS  VI.  1—11.  317 

9.  The  gospel,  which  teaches  the  only  true  method  of  justifi- 
cation, is  the  only  system  that  can  secure  the  sanctification  of 
men.  This  is  not  only  the  doctrine  of  this  section,  but  it  is  the 
leading  truth  of  this  and  the  following  chapter. 


REMARKS. 

1.  As  the  most  prominent  doctrinal  truth  of  this  passage  is, 
that  the  death  of  Christ  secures  the  destruction  of  sin  wherever 
it  secures  its  pardon;  so  the  most  obvious  practical  inference 
is,  that  it  is  vain  to  hope  for  the  latter  benefit,  unless  we  labour 
for  the  full  attainment  of  the  former,  vs.  2 — 11. 

2.  For  a  professing  Christian  to  live  in  sin,  is  not  only  to 
give  positive  evidence  that  he  is  not  a  real  Christian,  but  it  is 
to  misrepresent  and  slander  the  gospel  of  the  grace  of  God,  to 
the  dishonour  of  religion,  and  the  injury  of  the  souls  of  men, 
vs.  2—11. 

3.  Instead  of  holiness  being  in  order  to  pardon,  pardon  is  in 
order  to  holiness.  This  is  the  mystery  of  evangelical  morals, 
ver.  4,  &c. 

4.  The  only  effectual  method  of  gaining  the  victory  over  our 
sins,  is  to  live  in  communion  with  Jesus  Christ ;  to  regard  his 
death  as  securing  the  pardon  of  sin,  as  restoring  us  to  the  Divine 
favour,  and  as  procuring  for  us  the  influences  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  It  is  those  who  thus  look  to  Christ  not  only  for  pardon, 
but  for  holiness,  that  are  successful  in  subduing  sin ;  while  the 
legalist  remains  its  slave,  vs.  6,  8. 

5.  It  is  a  consolation  to  the  believer  to  know,  that  if  he  has 
evidence  of  being  now  a  Christian,  he  may  be  sure  that  he  shall 
live  with  Christ.  As  long  and  as  surely  as  the  head  lives,  so 
long  and  so  surely  must  all  the  members  live,  ver.  8,  &c. 

6.  To  be  in  Christ  is  the  source  of  the  Christian's  life ;  to  be 
like  Christ  is  the  sum  of  his  excellence ;  to  be  with  Christ  is 
the  fulness  of  his  joy,  vs.  2 — 11. 


318  ROMANS  VI.  12. 


KOMANS  VI.  12—23. 

ANALYSIS. 

Paul  having  shown,  in  the  preceding  section,  that  union  with 
Christ  secures  not  only  the  pardon,  but  the  destruction  of  sin, 
exhorts  his  brethren  to  live  agreeably  to  the  nature  and  design 
of  the  gospel,  vs.  12,  13.  As  an  encouragement  in  their  efforts 
to  resist  their  corruptions,  he  assures  them  that  sin  shall  not 
have  dominion  over  them,  because  they  are  not  under  the  law, 
but  under  grace,  ver.  14.  This  is  another  fundamental  princi- 
ple in  the  doctrine  of  sanctification.  Holiness  is  not  attained, 
and  cannot  be  attained  by  those  who,  being  under  the  law,  are 
still  unreconciled  to  God.  It  is  necessary  that  we  should  enjoy 
his  favour,  in  order  to  exercise  towards  him  right  affections. 
This  doctrine  is  not  justly  liable  to  the  objection,  that  we  may 
sin  with  impunity  if  not  under  the  law,  ver.  15.  The  true 
situation  of  the  Christian  is  illustrated  by  a  reference  to  the 
relation  between  a  servant  and  his  master.  Believers,  before 
conversion,  were  the  servants  of  sin;  after  it,  they  are  the 
servants  of  righteousness.  Formerly  they  were  under  an  influ- 
ence which  secured  their  obedience  to  evil ;  now  they  are  under 
an  influence  which  secures  their  obedience  to  good.  The  con- 
sequence of  the  former  service  was  death ;  of  the  present,  life. 
The  knowledge  of  these  consequences  tends  to  secure  the  con- 
tinued fidelity  of  the  Christian  to  his  new  Master,  vs.  16 — 23. 


COMMENTARY. 

Verse  12.  Let  not  sin  therefore  reign  in  your  mortal 
body,  &c.  This  is  a  practical  inference  [ohv)  from  what  pre- 
cedes. Since  the  believer  is  in  fact  united  to  Christ  in  his 
death  and  life,  he  should  live  accordingly.  The  exhortation 
contained  in  this  and  the  following  verse  has  a  negative  and 
positive  form — yield  not  to  sin,  but  give  yourselves  up  to 
God — corresponding  to  the  clauses,  dead  to  sin,  and  alive  unto 
Cfod,- in  ver.  11.  To  reign  signifies  to  exercise  uncontrolled 
authority.     Sin,    although    mortified   in   the   believer,    is    not 


ROMANS  VI.  12.  319 

destroyed.  Its  power  to  injure  remains  after  its  dominion  is 
overthrown.  The  exhortation  is,  that  we  should  not  yield  to 
this  dethroned  adversary  of  Christ  and  the  soul,  but  strenu- 
ously strive  against  its  efforts  to  gain  ascendency  over  us,  and 
to  bring  us  again  into  bondage.  Let  not  sin  reign  in  your 
mortal  body.  This  is  a  difficult  clause.  1.  Mortal  body  may 
be  a  periphrase  for  you:  'Let  not  sin  reign  within  you;'  as 
in  the  next  verse,  your  members   may   stand   for  yourselves. 

2.  Others  say  that  d^vrjToz  {mortal)  is  to  be  taken  in  the  figura- 
tive sense  in  which  U£xp6<;,  dead,  i.  e.  corrupt,  is  often  used. 

3.  Others  take  <T(o/xa  in  the  sense  of  trdp^,  corrupt  nature, 
including  everything  in  man  as  fallen,  which  is  not  due  to  the 
indwelling  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Thus  Calvin  says,  "Nuper 
admonui  vocem  Corporis  non  pro  carne  et  cute  et  ossibus  accipi, 
sed  pro  tota  hominis  massa,  ut  ita  loquar.  Id  certius  colligere 
licet  ex  prassenti  loco :  quia  alterum  membrum,  quod  mox  sub- 
jiciet  de  corporis  partibus,  ad  animum  quoque  extenditur.  Sic 
autem  crasse  Paulus  terrenum  hominem  significat."  He  says 
the  word  mortal  is  used,  "per  contemptum,  ut  doceat  totam 
hominis  naturam  ad  mortem  et  exitium  inclinare."  So  also 
Philippi,  among  the  modern  commentators,  says  that  here,  as 
as  in  Rom.  viii.  10,  13,  (where  ^avarouv  vat;  Trpd^ei^  too  ao)fxa- 
Toq  is  opposed  to  xara  adpxa  ^7jV,)  OMpa  is  the  antithesis  of 
TzvEdpa,  the  latter  being  the  soul  as  pervaded  by  the  Spirit 
of  God,  and  the  former  our  nature  considered  as  corrupt.  This, 
however,  is  so  contrary  to  the  general  usage  of  Scripture,  that 
the  ordinary  sense  of  the  words  is  to  be  preferred.  Paul  does 
not  teach  that  the  body  is  the  source  of  sin,  nor  its  exclusive  or 
principal  seat ;  but  it  is  the  organ  of  its  manifestation.  It  is 
that  through  which  the  dominion  of  sin  is  outwardly  revealed. 
The  body  is  under  the  power  of  sin,  and  that  power  the  apostle 
would  have  us  resist ;  and  on  the  other  hand,  the  sensual  appe- 
tites of  the  body  tend  to  enslave  the  soul.  Body  and  soul  are 
so  united  in  a  common  life,  that  to  say,  '  Let  not  sin  reign  in 
your  mortal  body,'  and  to  say,  'Let  not  sin  reign  in  you,' 
amount  to  the  same  thing.  When  we  speak  of  sin  as  dwelling 
in  the  soul,  we  do  not  deny  its  relation  to  the  body ;  so  neither 
does  the  apostle,  when  he  speaks  of  sin  dwelling  in  the  body, 
mean  to  deny  its  relation  to  the  soul. 


320  ROMANS  VI.  13. 

That  ye  should  obey  it  [aurfj,  i.  e.  sin,)  in  the  lusts  thereof, 
(auTOO,  viz.  of  the  body.)  We  should  not  obey  sin  by  yielding 
to  carnal  appetites.  The  common  text  has  here,  ef'c  to  uttoxou- 
£tv  auzfi  kv  toIq  Imd^oixiaci;  abrou.  Knapp,  Lachmann,  and 
other  editors,  adopt  the  simpler  and  better  authenticated  read- 
ing, £fc  TO  b-Kaxomiv  TciiC,  inc&Diiiatc,  auTou,  to  obey  its  lusts,  i.  e. 
the  lusts  of  the  body.  "A  man,"  says  Olshausen,  "must 
always  serve.  There  is  no  middle  ground  between  the  service 
of  sin  and  the  service  of  God.  We  have  justification  completely, 
or  we  have  it  not  at  all.  Sanctification,  as  springing  from  a 
living  faith,  and  as  the  fruit  of  God's  love  to  us,  admits  of 
degrees,  and  may  be  more  or  less  earnestly  cultivated ;  but  this 
determines,  not  our  salvation,  but  only  the  measure  of  future 
blessedness.  No  wisdom  or  caution,"  he  adds,  "can  guard  this 
doctrine  from  misunderstanding,  whether  such  misunderstand- 
ing arise  unintentionally  from  the  understanding,  or  designedly 
from  insincerity  of  heart.  It  nevertheless  is  the  only  way 
which  leads  to  God,  in  which  the  sincere  and  humble  cannot 
err."  "The  key  to  the  mystery,"  he  goes  on  to  say,  "that  the 
doctrine  of  redemption,  although  not  demanding  good  works, 
produces  them,  is  to  be  found  in  the  fact  that  love  excites  love 
and  the  desire  for  holiness.  Hence  obedience  is  no  longer 
slavish.  We  strive  to  obey,  not  in  order  to  be  saved  or  to 
please  God,  but  because  God  saves  us  without  works  or  merit 
of  our  own,  whom,  because  he  is  reconciled  in  the  Beloved,  we 
delight  to  serve." 

Verse  18.  Neither  yield  ye  your  members,  &c.  Do  not 
permit  sin  to  reign  in  you,  nor  yield  your  powers  as  its  instru- 
ments. Neither  yield,  fiYjdk  rtaptazdvtTB.  The  word  means  to 
place  by,  to  present,  (as  an  offering,)  Luke  ii.  22  ;  Rom.  xii.  1 ;  to 
give  up  to  the  power  or  service  of,  vs.  16,  19,  &c.  Your  members, 
either  literally,  members  of  the  body,  the  eye,  ear,  hand,  &c., 
or  figuratively,  your  powers,  whether  of  mind  or  body.  The 
choice  between  the  literal  and  figurative  interpretation  depends 
on  the  view  taken  of  the  preceding  verse.  If  there  aoJ[xa 
{body)  be  understood  literally,  then  your  members  can  only 
mean  the  members  of  the  body ;  but  if  mortal  body  is  there  a 
periphrase  for  you,  then  your  members  must  mean  your  facul- 
ties.    The  [xsXtj  [members)  are  the  parts  of  which  the  awfia 


ROMANS  VI.  14.  321 

consists ;  and  therefore  if  the  aioiia  stands  for  the  whole  person, 
the  members  must  include  all  our  powers,  mental  as  well  as  cor- 
poreal. In  vii.  5,  Paul  says  that  sin  "  did  work  in  our  mem- 
bers;" and  in  ver.  23,  he  speaks  of  "a  law  in  his  members." 
In  neither  of  those  cases  is  the  reference  exclusively  to  the 
body.  As  instruments  of  unrighteousness.  That  is,  instru- 
ments which  unrighteousness  uses,  or  which  are  employed  to 
eflFect  unrighteousness.  The  word  onXa  is  generic ;  it  is  used  in 
the  general  sense  of  instruments,  for  the  tackle  of  a  ship,  the 
tools  of  an  artisan,  though  most  frequently  for  weapons.  On 
account  of  this  general  usage,  and  of  Paul's  own  use  of  the 
word  in  xiii.  12,  "armour  of  light,"  (2  Cor.  vi.  7,  "armour  of 
righteousness,"  and  2  Cor.  x.  4,  "the  weapons  of  our  warfare,") 
many  prefer  the  restricted  sense  in  this  place.  Our  members 
are  regarded  as  weapons  which  sin  uses  to  regain  its  dominion, 
or  the  predominance  of  unrighteousness.  The  context,  however, 
does  not  favour  the  assumption  of  this  allusion  to  a  strife ;  and 
therefore  the  general  sense  of  instruments,  or  implements,  is 
more  in  keeping  with  the  rest  of  the  passage.  But  yield  your- 
selves unto  (rod;  d.kXa  Tcapaar^aaze,  hut,  on  the  contrary,  pre- 
sent yourselves,  i.  e.  give  ^-ourselves  up  to  God,  not  only  your 
several  powers,  but  your  very  selves,  a  dedication  which  of 
necessity  involves  that  of  each  separate  faculty.  In  the  first 
clause  of  the  verse  the  present  tense,  neptazdvtze,  is  used: 
here  it  is  the  first  aorist,  present  yourselves  once  for  all.  As 
alive  from  the  dead,  i.  e.  as  those  who  having  been  dead,  are 
now  alive.  Having  been  quickened  by  the  power  of  God, 
raised  from  the  death  of  sin  and  all  its  dreadful  consequences, 
they  were  bound  to  live  unto  God.  Who,  having  been  restored 
to  life,  would  desire  to  return  to  the  loathsomeness  of  the 
grave  ?  And,  i.  e.  and  especially,  your  members  (i.  e.  nspiazd- 
vezs,  present  your  members)  as  instruments  of  righteousness  to 
God.  Present  all  your  powers  to  God,  to  be  employed  by  him 
as  implements  of  righteousness ;  that  is,  instruments  by  which 
righteousness  may  be  effected. 

Verse  14.    For  sin  shall  not  have  dominion  over  you,  &c. 

The  future  here  is  not  to  be  understood  as  expressing  either  a 

command  or  an  exhortation,  not  only  because  the  third,  and 

not  the  second  person  is  used,  but  also  because  of  the  connec- 

21 


3^  ROMANS  VI.  14. 

tion,  as  indicated  by  for.  We  should  yield  ourselves  to  God, 
for  sin  shall  not  have  dominion,  &c.  It  is  not  a  hopeless  strug- 
gle in  -which  the  believer  is  engaged,  but  one  in  ■which  victory 
is  certain.  It  is  a  joyful  confidence  which  the  apostle  here 
expresses,  that  the  power  of  sin  has  been  effectually  broken, 
and  the  triumph  of  holiness  effectually  secured  by  the  work 
of  Christ.  The  ground  of  the  confidence  that  sin  shall  not  have 
dominion,  is  to  be  found  in  the  next  clause:  For  ye  are  not 
under  the  law,  hut  under  grace.  By  law  here,  is  not  to  be 
understood  the  Mosaic  law.  The  sense  is  not,  '  Sin  shall 
not  have  dominion  over  you,  because  the  Mosaic  law  is  abro- 
gated.' The  word  is  to  be  taken  in  its  widest  sense.  It  is  the 
rule  of  duty,  that  which  binds  the  conscience  as  an  expression 
of  the  will  of  God.  This  is  plain :  1.  From  the  use  of  the  word 
through  this  epistle  and  other  parts  of  the  New  Testament. 
2.  From  the  whole  doctrine  of  redemption,  which  teaches  that 
the  law  from  which  we  are  delivered  by  the  death  of  Christ,  is 
not  simply  the  Mosaic  law ;  we  are  not  merely  delivered  from 
Judaism,  but  from  the  obligation  of  fulfilling  the  law  of  God  as 
the  condition  of  salvation.  3.  Deliverance  from  the  Mosaic 
law  does  not  secure  holiness.  A  man  may  cease  to  be  a  Jew, 
and  yet  not  be  a  new  creature  in  Christ  Jesus.  4.  The  anti- 
thesis between  law  and  grace  shows  that  more  than  the  law  of 
Moses  is  here  intended.  If  free  from  the  Mosaic  law,  they  may 
still  be  under  some  other  law,  and  as  little  under  grace  as  the 
Pharisees.  To  be  under  the  law  is  to  be  under  the  obligation  to 
fulfil  the  law  of  God  as  a  rule  of  duty,  as  the  condition  of  salva- 
tion. Whosoever  is  under  the  law  in  this  sense,  is  under  the 
curse;  for  the  law  says,  "Cursed  is  every  one  who  continueth 
not  in  all  things  written  in  the  book  of  the  law  to  do  them."  As 
no  man  is  free  from  sin,  as  no  man  can  perfectly  keep  the  com- 
mandments of  God,  every  man  who  rests  upon  his  personal 
conformity  to  the  law,  as  the  ground  of  his  acceptance  with  God, 
must  be  condemned.  We  are  not  under  the  law  in  this  sense, 
but  under  grace  ;  that  is,  under  a  system  of  gratuitous  justifica- 
tion. We  are  justified  by  grace,  without  works.  We  are  not 
under  a  legal  dispensation,  requiring  personal  conformity  to  the 
law,  and  entire  freedom  from  sin,  past  and  present,  as  the  con- 
dition of  our  acceptance  ;  but  we  are  under  a  gracious  dispensa- 


ROMANS  VI.  15.  323 

tion,  according  to  which  God  dispenses  pardon  freely,  and  accepts 
the  sinner  as  a  sinner,  for  Christ's  sake,  without  works  or  merit 
of  his  own.  Whoever  is  under  the  law  in  the  sense  just  ex- 
plained, is  not  only  under  condemnation,  but  he  is  of  necessity 
under  a  legal  or  slavish  spirit.  What  he  does,  he  does  as  a 
slave,  ,to  escape  punishment.  But  he  who  is  under  grace,  who 
is  gratuitously  accepted  of  God,  and  restored  to  his  favour,  is 
under  a  filial  spirit.  The  principle  of  obedience  in  him  is  love, 
and  not  fear.  Here,  as  everywhere  else  in  the  Bible,  it  is 
assumed  that  the  favour  of  God  is  our  life.  We  must  be  recon- 
ciled to  him  before  we  can  be  holy ;  we  must  feel  that  he  loves 
us  before  we  can  love  him.  Paul  says  it  was  the  love  of  Christ 
to  him,  that  constrained  him  to  live  for  Him  who  thus  loved  him 
and  gave  Himself  for  him.  The  only  hope  therefore  of  sinners, 
is  in  freedom  from  the  law,  freedom  from  its  condemnation,  free- 
dom from  the  obligation  to  fulfil  it  as  the  condition  of  accept- 
ance, and  freedom  from  its  spirit.  Those  who  are  thus  free,  who 
renounce  all  dependence  on  their  own  merit  or  strength,  who 
accept  the  offer  of  justification  as  a  free  gift  of  God,  and  who 
are  assured  that  God  for  Christ's  sake  is  reconciled  to  them, 
are  so  united  to  Christ  that  they  partake  of  his  life,  and  their 
holiness  here  and  salvation  hereafter  are  rendered  perfectly 
certain. 

Verse  15.  Wliat  then?  shall  we  sin,  because  we  are  not 
under  the  law,  hut  under  grace  ?  God  forbid.  Because  works 
are  not  the  ground  of  our  justification ;  because  we  are  justified 
freely  by  his  grace,  are  we  at  liberty  to  sin  without  fear  and 
without  restraint?  Does  the  doctrine  of  gratuitous  salvation 
give  a  license  to  the  unrestrained  indulgence  of  all  evil  ?  Such 
has  been  the  objection  to  the  doctrines  of  grace  in  all  ages. 
And  the  fact  that  this  objection  was  made  to  Paul's  teachings, 
proves  that  his  doctrine  is  the  same  with  that  against  which  the 
same  objection  is  still  urged.  As  the  further  consideration  of 
this  difficulty  is  resumed  in  the  following  chapter,  the  apostle 
here  contents  himself  with  a  simple  negation,  and  a  reference 
to  the  constraining  influence  under  which  the  freely  pardoned 
sinner  is  brought,  which  renders  it  as  impossible  for  him  to 
serve  sin,  as  it  is  for  the  slave  of  one  man  to  be  obedient  to 
another  man.     The  slave  must  serve  his  own  master. 


824  ROMANS  VI.  16. 

Verse  16.  Know  ye  not,  that  to  ivhom  ye  yield  yourselves 
servants  to  obey,  his  servants  ye  are  to  whom  ye  obey,  &c. 
'  Know  ye  not  that  those  who  obey  sin  are  its  slaves ;  hurried 
on  from  one  degrading  service  to  another,  until  it  works  their 
ruin;  but  those  who- serve  holiness  are  constrained,  though 
sweetly,  to  constancy  and  fidelity,  until  the  glorious  consum- 
mation of  their  course?'  As  a  servant  or  slave  is  under  an 
influence  which  secures  obedience  to  his  master,  so  also,  in 
spiritual  or  moral  relations,  a  man  who  serves  sin  is  under  an 
influence  which  secures  the  continuance  of  his  obedience,  and 
he  who  serves  holiness  is  under  an  influence  which  efiectually 
secures  the  constancy  of  his  service.  This  being  the  case,  it  is 
not  possible  for  the  Christian  or  servant  of  holiness  to  be  found 
engaged  in  the  service  of  sin.  The  language  and  the  construc- 
tion are  here  nearly  the  same  as  in  ver.  13.  Here,  as  there, 
we  have  itsptavdvert  in  the  sense  of  giving  up  to  the  power  and 
disposal  of.  Paul  says,  that  those  who  give  themselves  up  to 
another  as  oouXooi;  £c<;  bnaxorjv,  slaves  to  obedience,  are  the  dooXoc 
of  him  whom  they  thus  obey.  It  enters  into  the  idea  of  slavery, 
that  the  subjection  is  absolute  and  continued.  The  slave  does 
not  obey  his  own  will,  but  his  master's.  He  is  subject  not  for 
a  time,  but  for  life.  He  is  under  an  influence  which  secures 
obedience.  This  is  as  true  in  spiritual  as  in  external  relations. 
He  who  serves  sin  is  the  slave  of  sin.  He  is  under  its  power. 
He  cannot  free  himself  from  its  dominion.  He  may  hate  his 
bondage ;  his  reason  and  conscience  may  protest  against  it ;  his 
will  may  resist  it ;  but  he  is  still  constrained  to  obedience.  This 
is  the  doctrine  of  our  Lord,  as  taught  in  John  viii.  34 :  "  He  that 
committeth  sin  is  the  slave  of  sin."  This  remains  true,  although 
this  service  is  unto  death:  "The  wages  of  sin  is  death."  The 
death  intended  is  spiritual  and  eternal.  It  is  the  absolute  loss 
of  the  life  of  the  soul,  which  consists  in  the  favour  and  fellow- 
ship of  God,  and  conformity  to  his  image.  What  is  true  of  sin 
is  true  of  holiness.  He  who  by  virtue  of  union  with  Christ  is 
made  obedient  to  God,  becomes,  as  Paul  says,  a  douXoc;  brcaxorj^, 
a  slave  of  obedience.  Obedience  (personified)  is  the  master  to 
which  he  is  now  subject.  He  is  not  only  bound  to  obey,  but  he 
is  made  to  obey  in  despite  of  the  resistance  of  his  still  imper- 
fectly sanctified  nature.     He  cannot  but  obey.     The  point  of 


ROMANS  VI.  17.  325 

analogy  to  which  reference  is  here  made,  is  the  certainty  of  the 
effect,  and  the  constraining  influence  by  which  that  effect  is 
secured.  In  the  case  both  of  sin  and  of  holiness,  obedience  is 
certain ;  and  it  is  rendered  certain  by  a  power  superior  to  the 
will  of  man.  The  great  difference  is,  that  in  the  one  case  this 
subjection  is  abnormal  and  destructive,  in  the  other  it  is  normal 
and  beneficent..  A  wise  man  is  free  in  being  subject  to  his 
reason.  The  more  absolute  and  constant  the  authority  of 
reason,  the  more  exalted  and  free  is  the  soul.  In  like  manner, 
the  more  completely  God  reigns  in  us,  the  more  completely  we 
are  subject  to  his  will,  so  much  the  more  are  we  free ;  that  is, 
so  much  the  more  do  we  act  in  accordance  with  the  laws  of  our 
nature  and  the  end  of  our  being.  Servants  of  obedience  unto 
rigJiteousness;  dixaioabvq  must  here  be  taken  in  its  subjective 
sense.  It  is  inward  righteousness,  or  holiness.  And  in  this 
sense  it  is  eternal  life,  and  therefore  antithetical  to  ■&d.vaxoz., 
which  is  spiritual  and  eternal  death.  The  service  of  sin  results 
in  death,  the  service  of  God  results  in  righteousness;  that  is,  in 
our  being  right,  completely  conformed  to  the  image  of  God,  in 
which  the  life  of  the  soul  consists. 

Verse  17.  But  G-od  be  thanked,  that  ye  were  the  servants 
of  sin;  but  ye  have  obeyed  from  the  heart,  &c.  As  it  is  the 
apostle's  object  to  show  that  believers  cannot  live  in  sin,  inas- 
much as  they  have  become  the  servants  of  another  master,  he 
applies  the  general  truth  stated  in  the  preceding  verses  more 
directly  to  his  immediate  readers,  and  gives  thanks  that  they, 
being  emancipated  from  their  former  bondage,  are  now  bound 
to  a  master  whose  service  is  perfect  liberty.  The  expression  in 
the  first  member  of  this  verse  is  somewhat  unusual,  although 
the  sense  is  plain :  "God  be  thanked,  that  ye  were  the  servants 
of  sin;"  that  is,  that  this  slavery  is  past;  or,  'God  be  thanked, 
that  ye,  being  the  servants  of  sin,  have  obeyed,'  &c. 

Ye  have  obeyed  from  the  heart;  this  obedience  is  voluntary 
and  sincere.  They  had  not  been  passively  transferred  from 
one  master  to  another ;  but  the  power  of  sin  being  broken,  they 
gladly  renounced  their  bondage,  and  gave  themselves  unto  God. 
Ye  obeyed,  says  the  apostle,  the  form  of  doctrine  which  was 
delivered  to  you.  The  ronoz  dcda-zfjc,  the  form  of  doctrine,  may 
jnean  the  doctrine  which  is  a  tutto^,  a  model  or  standard  to 


326  ROMANS  VI.  18. 

which  we  should  conform — sentiendi  agendique  norma  et  regula. 
Calvin  says  it  means  "expressam  justitise  imaginem,  quam 
cordibus  nostris  Christus  insculpsit."  Another  explanation 
assumes  tuttoi;  to  be  equivalent  to  form,  contents,  or  substance 
of  the  doctrine.  Compare  jiopipioaec;  Trj(;  j'vaxTea)^,  ii.  20.  The 
former  explanation  is  sustained  by  a  reference  to  2  Tim.  i.  13, 
where  Paul  speaks  of  a  uTtOTOTnoaa;  oyirxiuopzcou  X6j(dv,  a  form 
of  sound  Words;  that  is,  sound  words  which  are  a  pattern  or 
standard  of  faith.  Compare  Acts  xxiii.  25:  'Having  written 
an  epistle  containing  this  type,'  i.  e.  form  of  words.  By  form 
of  doctrine  is  to  be  understood  the  Gospel,  either  in  its  limited 
sense  of  the  doctrine  of  gratuitous  justification  through  Christ, 
of  which  the  apostle  had  been  speaking ;  or  in  its  wider  sense 
of  the  whole  doctrine  of  Christ  as  a  rule  both  of  faith  and  prac- 
tice. The  former  includes  the  latter.  He  who  receives  Christ 
as  priest,  receives  him  as  a  Lord.  He  who  comes  to  him  for 
justification,  comes  also  for  sanctification ;  and  therefore  obedi- 
ence to  the  call  to  put  our  trust  in  Christ  as  our  righteousness, 
implies  obedience  to  his  whole  revealed  will.  The  words  bTir^- 
xouaart  dz  ov  7:aped6&rjz£  tokov  dcda')^7ji;,  may  be  resolved  thus, 
biiri'Aobaarz  xunzip  dibayrfi,  dc,  ov  napzdo&vjrs.,  ye  have  obeyed  the 
type  of  doctrine  to  which  ye  have  been  delivered.  That  is,  the 
mould  into  which,  as  it  were,  ye  have  been  cast ;  as  Beza  says, 
the  gospel  is  regarded  "  quasi  instar  typi  cujusdam,  cui  veluti 
immittamur,  ut  ejus  figurae  conformemur."  This  last  idea  is 
unnatural :  d<;  8v  Tiapedo&rjte  is  either  equivalent  to  oc  naped- 
o&Tfj  ufjuv,  which  was  delivered  unto  you,  (see  Winer,  §  24.  2,) 
or,  to  which  ye  were  delivered,  "cui  divinitus  traditi  estis." 
That  is,  to  which  ye  were  subjected.  The  intimation  is,  that 
faith  in  the  gospel  is  the  gift  of  God,  and  obedience  is  our  con- 
sequent act.  "The  passive  (Tzapedod-i^Ts,)"  says  Philippi,  "indi- 
cates the  passive  relation  of  men  to  the  work  of  regeneration, 
of  which  his  activity  (pTrvjxouaare)  is  the  consequence,  according 
to  the  familiar  dictum :  Ita  a  Spiritu  Dei  agimur  ut  ipsi  quoque 
agamus." 

Verse  18.  Being  made  free  from  sin,  ye  became  the  servants 
of  rightedusness.  This  verse  may  be  regarded  as  the  conclusion 
from  what  precedes,  di  being  used  for  gov  :  '  Being  freed  then 
from  sin,'  &c.;  or  it  may  be  connected  immediately  with  ver.  17. 


ROMANS  VI.  19.  327 

a  comma  instead  of  a  period  intervening :  '  Ye  have  obeyed  the 
form  of  doctrine,  having  been  freed,"  &c.  The  latter  is  better. 
Freed  by  the  grace  of  God  from  sin  as  a  despotic  master,  ye 
became  the  servants,  kdooXio&rjre,  ye  were  made  slaves  to  right- 
eousness. It  was  not  license,  but  a  change  of  masters,  that 
they  had  experienced.  This  being  the  case,  it  is  impossible 
they  should  serve  sin;  they  have  now  another  master.  A 
manumitted  slave  does  not  continue  subject  to  his  former 
master.  "Absurdum  est,  ut  post  manumissionem  quis  in  servi- 
tutis  conditione  maneat.  Observandum,  quomodo  nemo  possit 
justitife  servire  nisi  Dei  potentia  et  beneficio  prius  a  peccati 
tyrannide  liberatus."  Calvin.  To  the  same  effect  our  Lord 
says:  "If  the  Son  make  you  free,  ye  shall  be  free  indeed." 
John  viii.  36.  This  subjection  to  righteousness  is  perfect 
liberty.  It  is  the  subjection  of  the  soul  to  God,  reason,  and 
conscience,  wherein  true  liberty  consists.  This  being  the  case, 
the  apostle  in  the  following  verse  explains  the  reason  why  he 
used  a  figure  apparently  so  incongruous,  in  speaking  of  the 
relation  of  the  believer  to  righteousness. 

Vekse  19.  /  speak  after  the  manner  of  men,  dvd^pconevou 
Xiyco;  I  say  what  is  human,  i.  e.  common  among  men.  The 
only  difference  between  this  expression  and  the  more  common 
phrase,  x«r'  dvd-pcDTtov  Xeyco,  is,  that  the  former  characterizes  as 
human  the  thing  said,  and  the  other  the  manner  of  saying  it. 
The  idea  in  this  case  is  the  same.  The  apostle  means  to  say, 
that  he  uses  an  illustration  drawn  from  the  common  relations 
of  men,  to  set  forth  the  relation  of  the  believer  to  God.  The 
slave  is  bound  to  serve  his  master ;  the  obedience  of  the  believer 
to  God  is  no  less  certain.  The  one  is  slavery,  because  the  obe- 
dience is  independent  of  the  will,  and  coerced;  the  other  is 
perfect  freedom,  because  rendered  from  the  heart,  and  with  full 
consent  of  the  will.  Yet  both  are  a  douXeia,  so  far  as  certainty 
of  obedience  is  concerned.  This  is  the  common  and  natural 
interpretation  of  this  clause.  Others,  however,  take  avd-pameiiov 
in  the  sense  in  which  it  is  used  in  1  Cor.  ix.  22.  There  it  is 
opposed  to  what  is  superhuman,  beyond  the  strength  of  man  to 
bear :  '  I  demand  only  what  is  human.  The  obedience  required 
is,  on  account  of  the  weakness  of  your  flesh,  only  such  as  you 
are  able  to  render.     For  as  ye  served  sin,  so  you  can  serve 


328  ROMANS  VI.  19. 

righteousness.  The  one  is  as  easy  as  the  other.  The  one  is 
the  measure  of  the  other.'  But  this  does  violence  to  the  con- 
nection. The  wartep — oozo)  do  not  refer  to  the  measure  of  the 
obedience,  but  to  the  change  of  masters :  'As  ye  served  sin,  so 
now  serve  God.'  Besides,  the  principle  that  the  measure  of 
obedience  is  determined  by  our  ability,  is  utterly  at  variance 
with  the  word  of  God  and  the  dictates  of  conscience.  The 
simple  design  of  the  apostle  in  this  passing  or  parenthetical 
remark  is,  to  state  the  reason  why  he  designated  our  new  rela- 
tion to  God  a  slavery.  He  used  this  illustration,  he  says,  on 
account  of  the  weakness  of  their  flesh;  not  intellectual  weak- 
ness, but  such  as  arose  from  the  adp^,  their  nature  as  corrupt. 
It  was  their  lack  of  spirituality  which  rendered  such  illustra- 
tions necessary.  The  ydp  {for)  of  the  next  clause  refers  to 
ver.  18 :  '  Being  freed  from  sin,  ye  became  the  servants  of 
righteousness;  for  as  ye  yielded  your  members,'  &c.  Your 
members,  yourselves,  your  various  faculties,  with  special  refer- 
ence to  their  bodily  organs  as  the  outward,  visible  instruments 
of  evil.  Ye  yielded  your  members,  ddbXa,  bound.  This  is  the 
only  passage  in  the  New  Testament  in  which  dooXoz  is  used  as 
an  adjective.  They  yielded  their  members  to  uncleanness  and 
to  iniquity,  rfj  dxad^apaia  xac  tq  dvopia.  These  two  words 
express  the  same  thing  under  different  aspects.  Sin  subjec- 
tively considered  is  pollution,  a  defilement  of  the  soul ;  rela- 
tively to  the  law  of  God,  it  is  dvopia,  what  is  unlawful,  what 
fails  of  conformity  to  the  law.  In  the  next  clause,  unto 
iniquity,  the  word  is  used  in  a  wider  sense.  They  gave  them- 
selves up  to  iniquity,  that  is,  to  do  evil ;  ei^  ttjv  duopcau  being 
equivalent  to  ere  '^o  Ttoielv  dvopiav.  Men  give  themselves  up 
to  sin  as  a  master,  to  do  what  the  law  forbids.  The  same 
idea  is  expressed,  if  £<c  ^^yi^  dvopiav  means,  for  the  mani- 
festation of  iniquity.  So  noiv  yield  your  members  as  servants 
to  righteousness.  Having  been  delivered  from  bondage  to  the 
tyrant  sin,  ye  should  act  as  becomes  your  new  relation,  and 
be  obedient  to  your  new  master,  even  to  him  who  hath  bought 
you  with  his  blood.  To  righteousness,  unto  holiness,  d<;  dyi- 
aapov,  so  as  to  be  pure  in  heart  and  life.  The  proximate  result 
bf  obedience  to  God  is  inward  conformity  to  the  Divine  image. 
Compare  1  Thess.  iii.  3,  4,  7. 


ROMANS  VI.  20—21.  329 

Verse  20.  For  when  ye  were  the  servants  of  sin,  ye  were  free 
from  righteousness.  This  verse  introduces  a  confirmation  of 
what  precedes.  The  foregoing  exhortation  is  enforced  by  the 
consideration  developed  in  vs.  21,  22,  that  the  service  of  sin 
is  death.  The  particle  ydp,  therefore,  is  used  in  its  common 
sense,  for,  and  not  namely.  Formerly,  when  the  slaves  of  sin, 
ye  were  iXtud-tpoc  r^  oaacoauvr^,  that  is,  either  '  free  in  the  esti- 
mation of  righteousness,'  ("An  ille  mihi  liber,  cui  mulier  impe- 
rat?"  Qicero ;)  or,  what  is  more  natural,  as  to  righteousness; 
so  far  as  righteousness  is,  concerned,  ye  were  free.  Righteous- 
ness had  no  power  over  you;  your  service  was  rendered  to 
another  master.  This  is  not  to  be  understood  ironically,  as 
though  the  apostle  designed  to  refer  to  their  former  state  as  one 
of  freedom  in  their  estimation.  It  is  the  simple  statement  of  a 
fact  of  experience.  While  the  servants  of  sin,  they  did  not  and 
could  not  serve  righteousness.  Here  are  two  services,  which  is 
to  be  preferred?  This  is  the  question  which  the  apostle  pre- 
sents for  their  consideration. 

Verse  21.  The  sense  of  this  verse  depends  mainly  on  the 
pointing.  It  may  be  read  thus :  '  What  fruit  had  ye  then  of 
those  things  of  which  ye  are  now  ashamed  ?  (Answer,  None,) 
for  the  end  of  those  things  is  death.'  Or,  'What  fruit  had  ye 
then?  (Answer,  Such,)  of  which  ye  are  now  ashamed,  for,"  &c. 
The  choice  between  these  interpretations  is  not  very  easy,  and 
accordingly  commentators  are  about  equally  divided  between 
them.  The  Vulgate,  the  English  version,  Calvin,  Beza,  Bengel, 
Meyer,  Fritzshe,  &c.,  adopt  the  former.  Luther,  Melancthon, 
Koppe,  Tholuck,  De  Wette,  Olshausen,  &c.,  the  latter.  The 
decision  seems  to  depend  principally  on  the  meaning  given  to 
the  phrase,  to  have  fruit.  If  this  means,  to  derive  benefit,  then 
the  sense  is,  '  What  benefit  did  you  derive  from  the  things  of 
which  you  are  now  ashamed?'  The  natural  answer  is,  'None; 
a  course  of  conduct  which  ends  in  death  can  yield  no  benefit.' 
This  gives  a  pertinent  sense :  it  is  suited  to  ver.  22,  where  fruit 
may  also  mean  advantage;  and  especially  it  agrees  best  with 
the  words  if  die;,  which  otherwise  must  refer  to  xapnbv,  (fruit 
of  which,)  which  is  not  natural.  In  favour  of  the  second  inter- 
pretation, however,  it  is  urged  that  fruit  is  never  in  the  New 
Testament  used  of  reward  or  emolument,  but  always  of  acts. 


330  ROMANS  VI.  21. 

The  familiar  illustration  is  that  of  a  tree  whose  fruit  is  good  or 
bad  according  to  its  nature.  According  to  this  view,  Paul 
means  to  ask,  'What  fruit  did  you  then  produce?  Such,'  he 
answers,  'of  which  you  are  now  ashamed.'  Besides  this  general 
use  of  the  word  (fruit,)  it  is  urged  that  in  ver.  22,  this  is  the 
natural  sense  of  the  word :  "  Ye  have  your  fruit  unto  holiness ;" 
that  is,  'Ye  produce  fruit  which  tends  to  holiness.'  "This 
figure,"  says  Olshausen,  "is  the  more  significant,  because  it  is 
so  directly  opposed  to  that  Pelagianism  which  is  so  congenial 
with  our  fallen  nature.  The  natural  man,  destitute  of  the 
knowledge  of  God,  of  himself,  and  of  sin,  dreams  that  by  his 
own  strength  and  efforts  he  can  produce  a  form  of  virtue  which 
can  stand  before  the  bar  of  God.  He  does  not  know  that  of 
necessity,  and  by  a  law  of  his  nature,  he  can  only  produce  evil 
fruit,  just  as  a  wild  tree  can  produce  only  bitter  fruit.  Even 
should  he  succeed  in  calling  into  exercise  all  the  good  he  has  in 
the  most  perfect  form,  it  is  so  destitute  of  love,  and  so  cor- 
rupted by  conceit,  that  it  merits  condemnation,  as  fully  as 
though  the  life  were  openly  immoral.  The  beginning  of  truth, 
of  which  holiness,  (which  is  true  liberty,)  by  a  like  organic 
necessity  and  law  of  nature,  is  the  fruit,  is  for  man  the 
acknowledgment  that  death  reigns  in  him,  and  that  he  must 
be  imbued  with  life."  All  this  is  true,  and  all  this  is  really 
involved  in  the  familiar  figure  which  our  Lord  uses  to  illus- 
trate the  relation  between  the  state  of  the  heart  and  of  the 
outward  life.  But  this  does  not  seem  to  be  the  idea  which 
the  apostle  here  intends  to  present.  The  phrase,  xapizdu 
TTOiecv,  does  indeed  always  mean  to  produce  fruit,  and  figura- 
tively, to  do  good  or  evil ;  but  xapnou  £;f£^v,  to  have  fruity 
means  to  have  the  advantage,  or  profit.  Thus,  in  i.  13,  Paul 
says:  "That  I  might  have  some  fruit  among  you;"  i.  e.  that 
he  might  gain  something,  win  some  souls  for  Christ.  If  this 
be  the  true  meaning  of  the  phrase  here,  then  the  former  of  the 
two  interpretations  is  to  be  preferred.  What  advantage  had 
you  of  the  service  of  sin  ?  None ;  for  the  end  of  those  things, 
the  re^oc,  the  final  result  of  the  service  of  sin,  is  death;  not 
physical  death,  but  the  death  of  the  soul,  final  and  hopeless 
perdition.  Such  was  their  former  condition ;  to  this  the  con- 
trast is  given  in  the  next  verse. 


ROMANS  VI.  22—23.  331 

Verse  22.  But  now,  being  made  free  from  sin,  ikeu^epoj- 
■&evT£^  dnb  r^c  &fiapTcac;  having  been  emancipated  from  one 
master,  dooX(od^evT&<;  oh  xcp  0£(p,  and  become  slaves  to  Grod,  i.  e. 
being  subject  to  his  controlling  influence  by  the  power  of  his 
Spirit,  '(/e  have  your  fruit  unto  holiness;  that  is,  the  benefit  or 
effect  derived  from  the  service  of  God  is  holiness.  Sanctifica- 
tion  is  the  proximate  result  of  this  new  service.  And  the  end 
eternal  life.  The  final  issue  of  this  service  is  complete  salva- 
tion; the  restoration  of  the  soul  to  the  favour  and  enjoyment 
of  God  for  ever.  "  Quemadmodum  duplicem  peccati  finem  ante 
proposuit,  ita  nunc  justitiae.  Peccatum  in  hac  vita  malse  con- 
scientise  tormenta  affert,  deinde  aeternam  mortem.  Justitise 
praesentem  fructum  colligimus,  sanctificationem :  in  futurum, 
speramus  vitam  aeternam." 

Verse  23.  For  the  wages  of  sin  is  death;  but  the  gift  of  God 
is  eternal  life,  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord.  The  reason  why 
death  is  the  result  of  sin  is,  that  sin  deserves  death.  Death  is 
due  to  it  in  justice.  There  is  the  same  obligation  in  justice, 
that  sin  should  be  followed  by  death,  as  that  the  labourer  should 
receive  his  wages.  As  it  would  be  unjust,  and  therefore  wrong, 
to  defraud  the  labourer  of  his  stipulated  reward,  so  it  would 
be  unjust  to  allow  sin  to  go  unpunished.  Those,  therefore,  who 
hope  for  pardon  without  an  atonement,  hope  that  God  will  in 
the  end  prove  unjust.  The  word  b^oivia  is,  strictly,  the  rations 
of  soldiers ;  in  a  wider  sense,  the  same  as  d.vre[jua&ia,  or  jjuad^oQ^ 
anything  which  is  due  as  a  matter  of  debt.  But  the  gift  of 
Crod,  TO  de  "j^dpefffia  zoo  6eou,  the  free,  unmerited  gift  of  God, 
is  eternal  life.  The  connection  between  holiness  and  life  is  no 
less  certain  than  that  between  sin  and  death,  but  on  different 
grounds.  Sin  deserves  death ;  holiness  is  itself  the  gift  of  God, 
and  is  freely  crowned  with  eternal  life.  The  idea  of  merit  is 
everywhere  and  in  every  way  excluded  from  the  gospel  method 
of  salvation.  It  is  a  system  of  grace,  from  the  beginning  to 
the  consummation.  Through  (rather  in)  Jesus  Christ  our 
Lord.  It  is  in  Christ,  as  united  to  him,  that  we  are  made 
partakers  of  eternal  life.  Jesus  Christ  and  his  gospel,  then, 
instead  of  being  the  ministers  of  sin — as  the  Jews,  and  since 
them,  the  opponents  of  the  doctrines  of  grace,  confidently 
asserted — effectually  secure  what  the  law  never  could  accom- 


332  ROMANS  VI.  12—23. 

plish,  an  obedience  resulting  in  holiness  here,  and  in  eternal 
life  hereafter. 


DOCTRINE. 

1.  The  leading  doctrine  of  this  section,  and  of  the  whole 
gospel,  in  reference  to  sanctification,  is,  that  grace,  instead  of 
leading  to  the  indulgence  of  sin,  is  essential  to  the  exercise 
of  holiness.  So  long  as  we  are  under  the  influence  of  a  self- 
righteous  or  legal  spirit,  the  motive  and  aim  of  all  good  works 
are  wrong  or  defective.  The  motive  is  fear,  or  some  merely 
natural  affection,  and  the  aim,  to  merit  the  bestowment  of  good. 
But  when  we  accept  of  the  gracious  offers  of  the  gospel,  and 
feel  that  our  sins  are  gratuitously  pardoned,  a  sense  of  the 
divine  love,  shed  abroad  in  the  heart  by  the  Holy  Spirit, 
awakens  all  holy  affections.  The  motive  to  obedience  is  now 
love,  and  its  aim  the  glory  of  God,  ver.  14,  &c. 

2.  Paul  teaches  that  it  is  not  only  obligatory  on  Christians 
to  renounce  the  service  of  sin,  but  that,  in  point  of  fact,  the 
authority  and  power  of  their  former  master  are  destroyed,  and 
those  of  their  new  master  experienced,  whenever  they  embrace 
the  gospel.  This  is  the  very  nature  of  the  change.  The  charge, 
therefore,  that  the  gospel  leads  to  the  service  of  sin,  is  an 
absurdity,  vs.  15 — 18. 

3.  Religion  is  essentially  active.  It  is  the  yielding  up  of  our- 
selves, with  all  our  powers,  to  God,  and  the  actual  employment 
of  them  as  instruments  in  doing  good.  Nothing  can  be  at  a 
greater  remove  from  this,  than  making  religion  a  mere  matter 
of  indolent  profession,  (a  saying,  Lord,  Lord,)  ver.  12,  &c. 

4.  Both  from  the  nature  of  things,  and  the  appointment  of 
God,  the  wages  of  sin  is  death.  It  renders  intercourse  with 
God,  who  is  the  fountain  of  life,  impossible.  It  consists  in  the 
exercise  of  feelings,  in  their  own  nature,  inconsistent  with  hap- 
piness ;  it  constantly  increases  in  malignity,  and  in  power  to 
destroy  the  peace  of  the  soul.  Apart  from  these  essential 
tendencies,  its  relation  to  conscience  and  the  justice  of  God, 
renders  the  connection  between  sin  and  misery  indissoluble. 
Salvation  in  sin  is  as  much  a  contradiction,  as  happiness  in 
misery,  vs.  21,  23. 


ROMANS  VI.  12—23.  333 

5.  Eternal  life  is  the  gift  of  God.  It  does  not,  like  eternal 
death,  flow,  as  a  natural  consequence,  from  anything  in  us. 
With  the  holy  angels,  who  have  never  lost  the  favour  of  God, 
this  may  be  the  case.  But  the  tendency  of  all  that  belongs  to 
us,  is  to  death;  this  must  be  counteracted;  those  excellences, 
in  which  life  consists,  and  from  which  it  flows,  must  be  pro- 
duced, sustained,  and  strengthened  by  the  constant,  condescend- 
ing, and  long-suff"ering  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  life  thus 
graciously  produced,  and  graciously  sustained,  is  at  last  gra- 
ciously crowned  with  eternal  glory,  vs.  22,  23. 


REMARKS. 

1.  We  should  cultivate  a  sense  of  the  Divine  favour  as  a 
means  to  holiness.  We  must  cease  to  be  slaves,  before  we  can 
be  children.  We  must  be  free  from  the  dominion  of  fear,  before 
we  can  be  under  the  government  of  love.  A  self-righteous 
spirit,  therefore,  is  not  more  inconsistent  with  reliance  on  the 
righteousness  of  Christ,  in  order  to  justification,  than  it  is  with 
the  existence  and  progress  of  sanctification.  Whatever  tends 
to  destroy  a  sense  of  the  Divine  favour,  must  be  inimical  to 
holiness.  Hence  the  necessity  of  keeping  a  conscience  void  of 
offence,  and  of  maintaining  uninterrupted  our  union  with  Christ 
as  our  sacrifice  and  advocate,  ver.  14,  &c. 

2.  Those  Christians  are  under  a  great  mistake,  who  suppose 
that  despondency  is  favourable  to  piety.  Happiness  is  one  of 
the  elements  of  life.  Hope  and  joy  are  twin  daughters  of  piety, 
and  cannot,  without  violence  and  injury,  be  separated  from 
their  parent.  To  rejoice  is  as  much  a  duty  as  it  is  a  privilege, 
ver.  14,  &c. 

3.  Sinners  are  slaves.  Sin  reigns  over  them ;  and  all  their 
powers  are  delivered  to  this  master  as  instruments  of  unright- 
eousness. He  secures  obedience  with  infallible  certainty ;  his 
bonds  become  stronger  every  day,  and  his  wages  are  death. 
From  his  tyranny  and  recompense  there  is  no  deliverance  by 
the  law ;  our  only  hope  is  in  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord,  vs.  12, 
13,  16,  &c. 

4.  Christians  are  the  servants  of  God.  He  reigns  over  them, 
and  all  their  powers  are  consecrated  to  him.     He,  too,  secures 


334  ROMANS  VII.  1—25. 

fidelity,  and  his  bonds  of  love  and  duty  become  stronger  every 
day.     His  reward  is  eternal  life,  vs.  12,  18,  16,  &c. 

5.  It  is  of  God,  that  those  who  were  once  the  servants  of  sin, 
become  the  servants  of  righteousness.  To  him,  therefore,  all 
the  praise  and  gratitude  belong,  ver.  17. 

6.  When  a  man  is  the  slave  of  sin,  he  commonly  thinks  him- 
self free ;  and  when  most  degraded,  is  often  the  most  proud. 
When  truly  free,  he  feels  himself  most  strongly  bound  to  God ; 
and  when  most  elevated,  is  most  humble,  vs.  20 — 22. 

7.  Self-abasement,  or  shame  in  view  of  his  past  life,  is  the 
necessary  result  of  those  views  of  his  duty  and  destiny,  which 
every  Christian  obtains  when  he  becomes  the  servant  of  God, 
ver.  21. 


CHAPTER   VII. 

CONTENTS. 

The  apostle,  having  shown  in  the  preceding  chapter  that  the 
doctrines  of  grace  do  not  give  liberty  to  sin,  but,  on  the  con- 
trary, are  productive  of  holiness,  in  this  chapter  first  illustrates 
and  confirms  his  position,  that  we  are  not  under  the  law,  but 
under  grace,  and  shows  the  consequences  of  this  change  in  our 
relation  to  God.  While  under  the  law,  we  brought  forth  fruit 
unto  sin ;  when  under  grace,  we  bring  forth  fruit  unto  right- 
eousness. This  occupies  the  first  section,  vs.  1 — 6.  The  second, 
vs.  7 — 25,  contains  an  exhibition  of  the  operation  of  the  law, 
derived  from  the  apostle's  own  experience,  and  designed  to 
show  its  insufficiency  to  produce  sanctification,  as  he  had  before 
proved  it  to  be  insufficient  for  justification.  This  section  con- 
sists of  two  parts,  vs.  7 — 13,  which  exhibit  the  operation  of 
the  law  in  producing  conviction  of  sin ;  and  vs.  14 — 25,  which 
show  that  in  the  inward  conflict  between  sin  and  holiness,  the 
law  cannot  afford  the  believer  any  relief.  His  only  hope  of 
victory  is  in  the  grace  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 


ROMANS  VII.  1.  336 


ROMANS   VII.  1—6. 

ANALYSIS. 

This  section  is  an  illustration  of  the  position  assumed  in 
ver.  14  of  the  preceding  chapter:  we  are  not  under  law,  but 
under  grace.  Paul  remarks,  as  a  general  fact,  that  the  author- 
ity of  laws  is  not  perpetual,  ver.  1,  For  example,  the  law  of 
marriage  binds  a  woman  to  her  husband  only  so  long  as  he 
lives.  When  he  is  dead,  she  is  free  from  the  obligation  which 
that  law  imposed,  and  is  at  liberty  to  marry  another  man, 
vs.  2,  3.  So  we,  being  free  from  the  law,  which  was  our  first 
husband,  are  at  liberty  to  marry  another,  even  Christ.  We  are 
freed  from  the  law  by  the  death  of  Christ,  ver.  4.  The  fruit 
of  our  first  marriage  was  sin,  ver.  5.  The  fruit  of  the  second 
is  holiness,  ver.  6. 

The  apparent  confusion  in  this  passage  arises  from  the  apos- 
tle's not  carrying  the  figure  regularly  through.  As  a  woman  is 
free  from  obligation  to  her  husband  by  his  death,  so  we  are  free 
from  the  law  by  its  death,  is  obviously  the  illustration  intended. 
But  the  apostle,  out  of  respect  probably  to  the  feelings  of  his 
readers,  avoids  saying  the  law  is  dead,  but  expresses  the  idea 
that  we  are  free  from  it,  by  saying,  we  are  dead  to  the  law  by 
the  body  of  Christ.  "  Caeterum  nequis  conturbetur,  quod  inter 
se  comparata  membra  non  omnino  respondent:  prsemonendi 
sumus,  apostolum  data  opera  voluisse  exigua  inversione  deflec- 
tere  asperioris  verbi  invidiam.  Debuerat  dicere,  ut  ordine  simi- 
litudinem  contexeret:  Mulier  post  mortem  viri  soluta  est  a 
conjugii  vinculo.  Lex,  quae  locum  habet  mariti  erga  nos,  mortua 
est  nobis :  ergo  sumus  ab  ejus  potestate  liberi.  Sed  ne  ofi"end- 
eret  Judgeos  verbi  asperitate,  si  dixisset  legem  esse  mortuam, 
deflectione  est  usus,  dicens  nos  legi  esse  mortuos."    Calvin. 

COMMENTARY. 

Verse  1.  Know  ye  not,  brethren,  [for  I  speah  to  them  that 
hnoio  the  law,)  how  that  the  law  hath  dominion  over  a  man  as 
long  as  he  liveth  ?  In  the  English  version  of  the  words  yj  d-yvo- 
etre,  the  particle  q,  or,  is  overlooked.    As  that  particle  is  almost 


336  ROMANS  VII.  1. 

always  used  in  reference  to  the  immediately  preceding  context, 
Meyer  and  others  insist  on  connecting  this  verse  with  \i.  23 : 
'The  gift  of  God  is  eternal  life;  or  are  ye  ignorant.'  That  is, 
you  must  recognize  eternal  life  as  a  gift,  unless  ye  are  ignorant 
that  the  law  does  not  bind  the  dead.  But  this  is  evidently 
forced.  The  idea  which  vj  is  used  to  recall,  is  that  in  vi.  14 : 
"Ye  are  not  under  the  law,  but  under  grace."  This  is  the 
main  idea  in  the  whole  context,  and  is  that  which  the  following 
passage  carries  out  and  enforces.  The  thing  to  be  proved  is, 
that  we  are  not  under  the  law.  The  proof  is,  that  the  law  does 
not  bind  the  dead.  But  we  are  dead,  therefore  we  are  free  from 
the  law.  This  idea,  that  the  law  binds  a  man  only  so  long  as  he 
lives,  is  presented  as  a  general  principle,  and  is  then  illustrated 
by  a  specific  example.  That  example  is  the  law  of  marriage, 
which  ceases  to  bind  the  parties  when  one  of  them  is  dead.  So 
the  law,  as  a  covenant  of  works,  ceases  to  bind  us  when  death 
has  loosed  its  bonds.  We  are  as  free  as  the  woman  whose  hus- 
band is  dead.  "Sit  generalis  propositio,"  says  Calvin,  "legem 
non  in  alium  finem  latam  esse  hominibus,  quam  ut  prsesentem 
vitam  moderetur :  apud  mortuos  nullum  ei  superesse  locum. 
Cui  postea  hypothesin  subjiciet,  nos  illi  esse  mortuos  in  Christi 
corpore."  Brethren;  a  mode  of  address  applicable  to  all 
believers.  He  speaks  to  his  spiritual  brethren,  and  not  to  the 
Jewish  converts  alone,  his  brethren  according  to  the  flesh.  I^or 
I  speak  to  them  that  know  the  laiv.  That  is,  I  speak  to  you  as 
to  persons  who  know  the  law ;  not,  I  speak  to  those  among  you 
who  know  the  law.  He  does  not  distinguish  one  class  of  his 
readers  from  another.  That  would  require  the  participle  in  the 
dative,  rdlq  yevioaxouocv,  to  the  hiowers,  as  opposed  to  those 
among  them  who  did  not  know.  He  assumes  that  all  his  read- 
ers were  fully  cognizant  of  the  principle,  that  the  law  has 
dominion  over  a  man  so  long  as  he  liveth.  What  law  does  the 
apostle  here  refer  to  it  ?  It  may  be  understood  of  law  without 
any  restriction.  Law,  all  laws,  (in  the  aspect  in  which  they  are 
contemplated,)  bind  a  man  only  so  long  as  he  lives.  Or,  it  may 
mean  specifically  the  Mosaic  law ;  or,  more  definitely  still,  the 
marriage  law.  There  is  no  reason  for  th'ese  limitations.  The 
proposition  is  a  general  one ;  though  the  application  is  doubt- 
less to  the  law  of  which  he  had  been  speaking,  and  specially  to 


ROMANS  VII.  1.  387 

the  law  referred  to  in  vi.  14,  from  which  he  sajs  we  are  now 
free.  That  certainly  is  not  the  Mosaic  law  considered  as  a  tran- 
sient economy,  or  as  a  system  of  religious  rites  and  ceremonies 
designed  for  one  people,  and  for  a  limited  period.  It  is  the 
Mosaic  law  considered  as  a  revelation  of  the  moral  law,  which 
is  holy,  just,  and  good,  and  which  says,  "Thou  shalt  not 
covet."  He  illustrates  the  mode  of  our  deliverance  from  that 
law,  as  a  covenant  of  works,  by  a  reference  to  the  admitted 
fact,  that  law  has  no  dominion  over  the  dead. 

The  original  leaves  it  doubtful  whether  the  last  clause  of  the 
verse  is  to  be  rendered  "as  long  as  he  lives,"  or  "as  long  as  it 
lives."  The  decision  of  this  point  depends  on  the  context.  In 
favour  of  the  latter,  it  may  be  said,  1.  That  it  is  better  suited 
to  the  apostle's  design,  which  is  to  show  that  the  law  is  dead  or 
abrogated.  2.  That  in  verse  6  (according  to  the  common  read- 
ing) the  law  is  spoken  of  as  being  dead.  3.  And,  especially, 
that  in  vs.  2,  3,  the  woman  is  said  to  be  free  from  the  law,  not 
by  her  own,  but  by  her  husband's  death ;  which  would  seem  to 
fequire  that,  in  the  other  part  of  the  comparison,  the  husband 
(i.  e.  the  law)  should  be  represented  as  dying,  and  not  the  wife, 
that  is,  those  bound  by  the  law.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  it 
must  be  admitted  that  the  law  lives,  and  the  law  dies,  are  very 
unusual  modes  of  expression,  and  perfectly  unexampled  in 
Paul's  writings,  if  the  doubtful  case  in  ver.  6  be  excepted. 
2.  This  interpretation  is  inconsistent  with  ver.  2.  It  is  not  the 
law  that  dies :  "  The  woman  is  bound  to  her  husband  as  Ions:  as 
he  liveth;  but  if  the  husband  be  dead,"  &c.  3.  Throughout  the 
passage  it  is  said  that  we  are  dead  to  the  law  (ver.  4,)  delivered 
from  the  law  (ver.  6,)  and  not  that  the  law  is  dead.  The  com- 
mon interpretation,  therefore,  is  to  be  preferred :  '  The  law  has 
dominion  as  long  and  no  longer  than  the  person  lives,  to  whom 
it  has  respect.  For  example,  the  law  of  marriage  ceases  to  be 
binding  when  one  of  the  parties  is  dead.'  Instead  of  under- 
standing the  words,  as  long  as  he  liveth,  of  the  natural  or  phy- 
sical life,  as  is  done  by  the  great  body  of  interpreters,  Philippi 
and  others  say  the  meaning  is,  '  That  the  law  binds  a  man  so 
long  as  his  natural,  corrupt,  unregenerated  life  continues.  When 
the  old  man  is  crucified,  he  is  free  from  the  law.'  We  have 
here,  he  says,  the  same  idea  as  is  expressed  above,  vi.  7,  'He 
22 


338  ROMANS  VII.  2—3. 

that  dieth  is  justified  from  sin.'  This  interpretation  is  not  only 
unnatural,  but  it  necessitates  a  forced  allegorical  interpretation 
of  the  following  verses. 

Verse  2.  For  the  woman  which  hath  a  husband,  yovr]  UTzav- 
8poQ,  viro  subjecta,  married,  answering  to  'niD^a^  ntiPi,  Num. 
V.  29.  Is  bound  by  the  law  to  her  living  husband,  T(p  ^^aivu 
d.vdf)i,  i.  e.  to  her  husband  while  living.  But  if  her  husband  be 
dead,  she  is  freed  from  the  law  of  her  husband.  Is  freed  from, 
xoxripyrfax  d.n6  is  an  expression  which  never  occurs  in  common 
Greek.  The  same  idiom  is  found  in  ver.  6  of  this  chapter,  and 
in  Gal.  v.  4.  Kaxapyziv  means  to  invalidate,  to  render  void. 
The  idea  is,  that  the  relation  to  her  husband  is  broken  off,  and 
she  is  free.  Law  of  her  husband  means  law  relating  to  her 
husband.  The  phrase  is  analogous  to  those  often  used  in  the 
Old  Testament — "law  of  the  sacrifice;"  "law  of  leprosy;" 
"law  of  defilement."  According  to  the  common  interpretation 
of  this  verse,  ydp  {for)  introduces  a  confirmatory  illustration : 
'Law  is  not  of  perpetual  obligation;  for  example,  a  married 
woman  is  free  from  the  law  which  bound  her  to  her  husband,  by 
his  death.'  There  is  of  course  a  slight  incongruity  between  the 
illustration  and  the  form  in  which  the  principle  is  stated  in  the 
first  verse.  There  it  is  said  that  the  law  has  dominion  over  a 
man  so  long  as  he  lives.  The  illustration  is,  that  a  wife  is  free 
(not  when  she  dies)  when  her  husband  dies.  For  this  and  other 
reasons,  many  interpreters  do  not  regard  this  verse  as  present- 
ing an  example,  but  as  an  allegory.  Those  who  take  this  view, 
give  different  explanations.  After  Augustin,  Melancthon,  Beza, 
and  others,  say :  '  The  husband  is  our  corrupt  nature,  (vis  ilia 
nativa,  as  Beza  calls  it,  ciens  in  nobis  affectiones  peccatorum ;) 
the  wife  is  the  soul,  or  our  members.  When,  therefore,  the 
corrupt  nature  (or  old  man)  dies,  the  soul  is  free  from  that  hus- 
band, and  is  at  liberty  to  marry  another.'  Others,  with  much 
more  regard  to  the  context,  say  that  the  wife  is  the  Church, 
the  husband  the  law;  so  Origen,  Chrysostom,  Olshausen,  Phi- 
lippi,  &c.  This  is  indeed  the  application  which  the  apostle 
makes  in  the  following  verses,  but  it  is  not  what  is  said  in 
vs.  2,  3.  Here  we  have  only  an  example,  illustrating  the  truth 
of  the  assertion  in  ver.  1. 

Verse  8  is  an  amplification  and  confirmation  of  what  is  said 


ROMANS  VII.  4.  339 

in  ver.  2 :  That  a  woman  is  bound  by  the  law  to  her  husband  as 
long  as  he  lives,  is  plain,  because  she  is  called  an  adulteress  if 
she  marries  another  man  while  her  husband  lives.  And  that 
she  is  free  from  that  law  when  he  dies,  is  plain,  because  she  is 
in  that  case  no  adulteress,  though  she  be  married  to  another 
man.  She  shall  he  called^  Y^ftrjiiaziaec,  authoritatively  and 
solemnly  declared  to  be.  Xprniaxlf^ttv  (from  XPW^  '^^  literally 
to  transact  business,  and  specially  the  business  of  the  state,  to 
give  decisions,  or  decrees ;  and  specially  in  the  New  Testament, 
to  utter  divine  responses,  oraeula  edere,  divinitus  admonere;  see 
Matt.  ii.  12,  22 ;  Luke  ii.  26 ;  Acts  x.  22 ;  Heb.  viii.  5,  xi.  7. 
Compare  Rom.  xi.  4. 

Verse  4.  Wherefore,  my  brethren,  ye  also  have  become  dead 
to  the  law  by  the  body  of  Christ.  As  the  woman  is  free  from 
the  law  by  the  death  of  her  husband,  so  ye  also  [xal  u/ieci;)  are 
freed  from  the  law  by  the  death  of  Christ.  This  is  the  applica- 
tion made  by  the  apostle  of  the  illustration  contained  in  vs.  2,  3. 
The  law  is  our  first  husband;  we  were  bound  to  satisfy  its 
demands.  But  the  law  being  dead,  (i.  e.  fulfilled  in  Christ,)  we 
are  free  from  the  obligation  of  obedience  to  it  as  the  condition 
of  justification,  and  are  at  liberty  to  accept  the  gospel.  "Lex 
velut  maritus  fuit,"  says  Calvin,  "sub  cujus  jugo  detinemur, 
donee  mortua  est.  Post  legis  mortem  Christus  nos  assumpsit, 
id  est,  a  lege  solutes  adjunxit  sibi.  Ergo  Christo  e  mortuis 
suscitato  copulati  adhaerere  ei  soli  debemus :  atque  ut  aeterna 
est  Christi  vita  post  resurrectionem,  ita  posthac  nullum  futurum 
est  divortium."  Instead  of  saying,  The  law  is  dead,  as  the  con-' 
sistency  of  the  figure  would  demand,  the  apostle  expresses  the 
same  idea  by  saying.  Ye  are  dead  to  the  law,  or  rather,  are 
slain,  put  to  death,  k&avazw^y^Te.  This  form  of  expression  is 
probably  used  because  the  death  of  Christ,  in  which  we  died, 
was  an  act  of  violence.  He  was  put  to  death,  and  we  in  him. 
To  be  slain  to  the  law,  means  to  be  freed  from  the  law  by  death. 
Death,  indeed,  not  our  own,  but  ours  vicariously,  as  we  were 
crucified  in  Christ,  who  died  on  the  cross  in  our  behalf,  and  in 
our  stead.  It  is  therefore  added,  by  the  body  of  Christ,  i.  e.  by 
his  body  as  slain.  He  redeemed  us  from  the  law  by  death ;  "  by 
being  a  curse,"  Gal.  iii.  13;  "by  his  blood,"  Eph.  i.  7,  ii.  13; 
"by  his  flesh,"  Eph.  ii.  15;  "by  the  cross,"  Eph.  ii.  16;  "by 


340  ROMANS  VII.  4. 

the  body  of  his  flesh,"  Col.  i.  22.  These  are  all  equivalent 
expressions.  They  all  teach  the  same  doctrine,  that  Christ 
bore  our  sins  upon  the  tree  ;  that  his  sufferings  and  death  were 
a  satisfaction  to  justice,  and,  being  so  intended  and  accepted, 
they  effect  our  deliverance  from  the  penalty  of  the  law.  We 
are  therefore  free  from  it.  Although  the  law  continues  ever- 
more to  bind  us  as  rational  creatures,  it  no  longer  prescribes 
the  conditions  of  our  salvation.  It  is  no  longer  necessary  that 
we  should  atone  for  our  own  sins,  or  work  out  a  righteousness 
such  as  the  law  demands.  Christ  has  done  that  for  us.  We 
are  thus  freed  from  the  law,  that  we  should  he  married  to 
another,  ec<;  to  ysi^iffd-ai,  as  expressing  the  design.  The  proxi- 
mate design  of  our  freedom  from  the  law,  is  our  union  with 
Christ ;  and  the  design  of  our  union  with  Christ  is,  that  we 
should  bring  forth  fruit  unto  God,  that  is,  that  we  should  be 
holy.  Here,  therefore,  as  in  the  preceding  chapter,  the  apostle 
teaches  that  the  law  cannot  sanctify;  that  it  is  necessary  we 
should  be  delivered  from  its  bondage,  and  be  reconciled  to  God, 
before  we  can  be  holy.  He  to  whom  we  are  thus  united,  is  said 
to  be  he  who  is  raised  from  the  dead.  As  Christ  is  spoken  of, 
or  referred  to  as  having  died,  it  was  appropriate  to  refer  to  him 
as  now  living.  It  is  to  the  living  and  life-giving  Son  of  God 
that  we  are  united  by  faith  and  the  indwelling  of  the  Spirit ;  and 
therefore  it  is  that  we  are  no  longer  barren  or  unfruitful,  but 
are  made  to  bring  forth  fruit  unto  God.  "  Sed  ultra  progreditur 
apostolus,"  says  Calvin,  "nempe  solutum  fuisse  legis  vinculum, 
non  ut  nostro  arbitrio  vivamus,  sicuti  mulier  vidua  sui  juris  est, 
dum  in  coelibatu  degit ;  sed  alteri  marito  nos  jam  esse  devinc- 
tos:  imo  de  manu  (ut  aiunt)  in  manum  a  lege  ad  Christum 
nos  transiisse." 

It  need  hardly  be  remarked,  that  the  law  of  which  the  apos- 
tle is  here  speaking,  is  not  the  Mosaic  law  considered  as  the 
Old  Testament  economy.  It  is  not  the  doctrine  of  this  or  of 
similar  passages,  that  Christ  has  merely  delivered  us  from  the 
yoke  of  Jewish  institutions,  in  order  that  we  may  embrace  the 
simpler  and  more  spiritual  dispensation  of  the  gospel.  The  law 
of  which  he  speaks,  is  the  law  which  says,  "  The  man  that 
doeth  these  things  shall  live  by  them,"  x.  5;  Gal.  iii.  10;  that 
is,  which  requires  perfect  obedience  as  the  condition  of  accept- 


ROMANS  VII.  4.  341 

ance.  It  is  that  which  says,  "Thou  shalt  not  covet,"  ver.  7; 
without  which  sin  is  dead,  ver.  8 ;  which  is  holy,  just  and  good, 
ver.  12 ;  which  is  spiritual,  ver.  14,  &c.  It  is  that  law  by  whose 
works  the  Gentiles  cannot  be  justified,  chap.  iii.  20 ;  from  whose 
curse  Christ  has  redeemed  not  the  Jews  only,  but  also  the  Gen- 
tiles, Gal.  iii.  13,  14.  It  is  plain,  therefore,  that  Paul  here 
means  by  the  law,  the  will  of  God,  as  a  rule  of  duty,  no  matter 
how  revealed.  From  this  law,  as  prescribing  the  terms  of  our 
acceptance  with  God,  Christ  has  delivered  us.  It  is  the  legal 
system  which  says,  "Do  this  and  live,"  that  Christ  has  abo- 
lished, and  introduced  another,  Avhich  says,  "  He  that  believes 
shall  be  saved."  Since,  however,  as  remarked  above  (chap. 
vi.  14,)  the  Old  Testament  economy,  including  the  Mosaic  insti- 
tutions, was  the  form  in  which  the  law,  as  law,  was  ever  present 
to  the  minds  of  the  apostle  and  his  readers ;  and  since  deliver- 
ance from  the  legal  system,  as  such,  involved  deliverance  from 
that  economy,  it  is  not  wonderful  that  reference  to  that  dis- 
pensation should  often  be  made ;  or  that  Paul  should  at  times 
express  the  idea  of  deliverance  from  the  law,  as  such,  by  terms 
which  would  seem  to  express  only  deliverance  from  the  particu- 
lar form  in  which  it  was  so  familiar  to  his  readers.  So,  too,  in 
tiie  epistle  to  the  Galatians,  we  find  him  constantly  speaking  of 
a  return  to  Judaism  as  a  renunciation  of  the  method  of  gratui- 
tous justification,  and  a  recurrence  to  a  reliance  on  the  right- 
eousness of  works.  The  reason  of  this  is  obvious.  The  Old 
Testament  dispensation,  apart  from  its  evangelical  import,  which 
lay,  like  a  secondary  sense,  beneath  the  cover  of  its  institutions, 
was  but  a  reenactment  of  the  legal  system.  To  make,  however, 
as  is  so  often  done,  the  whole  meaning  of  the  apostle  to  be,  that 
we  are  freed  from  the  Jewish  law,  is  not  only  inconsistent  in 
this  place  with  the  context,  and  irreconcilable  with  many 
express  declarations  of  Scripture,  but  destructive  of  the  whole 
evangelical  character  of  the  doctrine.  How  small  a  part  of  the 
redemption  of  Christ  is  deliverance  from  the  Mosaic  institutions ! 
How  slight  the  consolation  to  a  soul,  sensible  of  its  exposure  to 
the  wrath  of  God,  to  be  told  that  the  law  of  Moses  no  longer 
condemns  us !  How  void  of  truth  and  meaning  the  doctrine, 
that  deliverance  from  the  law  is  necessary  to  holiness,  if  the  law 
means  the  Jewish  economy  merely 


342  ROMANS  VII.  5. 

Verse  5.  For  when  we  were  in  the  flesh,  the  motions  of  sin, 
which  were  hy  the  law,  &c.  The  apostle  having,  in  ver.  4,  stated 
that  believers  are  freed  from  the  law  by  the  death  of  Christ,  in 
this  and  the  following  verse,  shows  the  necessity  and  the  con- 
sequences of  this  change :  '  We  have  been  thus  freed,  because 
formerly,  when  under  the  law,  we  brought  forth  fruit  unto 
death ;  but  now,  being  free  from  the  law,  we  are  devoted  to  the 
service  of  God.'  The  force  of /or,  at  the  beginning  of  this 
verse,  is  therefore  obvious.  The  former  legal  state  of  believers 
is  here  described  by  saying,  they  were  in  the  flesh.  In  the 
language  of  Scripture,  the  word  flesh  expresses,  in  such  con- 
nections, one  or  the  other  of  two  ideas,  or  both  conjointly. 
First,  a  state  of  moral  corruption,  as  in  chap.  viii.  8,  "Those 
that  are  in  the  flesh;"  secondly,  a  carnal  state,  i.  e.  a  state  in 
which  men  are  subject  to  external  rites,  ceremonies,  and  com- 
mands; or  more  generally,  a  legal  state,  inasmuch  as  among 
the  Jews,  that  state  was  one  of  subjection  to  such  external 
rites.  Gal.  iii.  3,  "  Having  begun  in  the  Spirit,  are  ye  now  made 
perfect  by  the  flesh?"  Compare  Gal.  iv.  9,  where  the  expression 
"weak  and  beggarly  elements"  is  substituted  for  the  phrase 
"the  flesh;"  see  Rom.  iv.  1.  In  the  present  case,  both  ideas 
appear  to  be  included.     The  meaning  is,  '  when  in  your  unre- 

![«newed  and  legal  state.'  The  opposite  condition  is  described 
ver.  6)  as  a  state  of  freedom  from  the  law ;  which,  of  course, 
shows  that  the  second  of  the  two  ideas  mentioned  above  was 
prominent  in  the  apostle's  mind  when  he  used  the  words  "  in 
the  flesh."  In  vi.  14,  the  apostle  says,  "Sin  shall  not  have 
dominion  over  you,  for  ye  are  not  under  the  law;"  and  here,  in 
the  exposition  of  that  passage,  he  shows  why  it  is  that  while 
under  the  law,  sin  does  have  dominion.  It  is  because,  while  in 
that  state  of  condemnation  and  alienation  from  God,  the  efiect 
of  the  law  is  to  produce  sin.  He  says  the  7ta&rjfj.aTa  zoJv  kfiap- 
Tuov  are  bia  roh  vopLou.  This  does  not  mean  that  the  passions 
of  sin  (i.  e.  which  manifest  themselves  in  sinful  acts)  are  simply 
made  known  by  the  law,  but  they  arc  hy  it,  that  is,  produced 
by  it.  The  word  jtadrjiiara  literally  means  what  is  sufi"ered, 
afilictions ;  here  it  is  used  in  a  secondary  sense  for  passions, 
(motions,  in  the  sense  of  emotions,  feelings.)  These  two  mean- 
ings of  the  word  are  nearly  allied,  inasmuch  as  in  passion,  or 


ROMANS  VII.  6.  343 

feeling,  the  soul  is  rather  the  subject  than  the  agent.  These 
sinful  feelings,  aroused  by  the  law,  the  apostle  says  evrjpyelTO, 
ivrought,  (the  word  is  here,  as  everywhere  else  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament, used  in  an  active  sense,)  in  our  members;  i.  e.  in  us, 
not  merely  in  our  bodily  members,  but  in  all  our  faculties, 
whether  of  soul  or  body.  To  bring  forth  fruit;  ere  ^o  xapiio- 
(fopriaac,  as  expressing  the  result,  not  the  design.  The  effect 
of  the  excitement  of  sinful  feeling  by  the  law,  was  the  produc- 
tion of  fruit  unto  death;  tw  id^avarw,  as  opposed  to  T(p  dedJ  of 
the  preceding  verse.  Death  is  personified.  He  is  represented 
as  a  master,  to  whom  our  works  are  rendered.  They  belong  to 
him.  Death,  in  other  words,  is  the  consequence  or  end  secured 
by  our  sins.  The  wages  of  sin  is  death.  The  consequence  of 
sinning  is,  that  we  die.  The  death  here  meant  is  no  more  mere 
physical  death  than  in  vi.  23.  It  is  that  death  which  the  law 
of  God  threatens  as  the  punishment  of  sin. 

Verse  6.  But  now,  {uwi  di,  opposed  to  ozs  of  ver.  5,)  i.  e. 
since  our  conversion,   toe  were  freed  from  the  law;  xaxY]p-fj- 
'&7jpsv  and  TOO  vopLou,  (the  same  idiom  as  in  ver.  2.)     How  were 
we  thus  freed  from  the  law?    By  death.    If  dTrod-avovroi;,  found 
in  the  common  text,  is  the  true  reading,  {that  having  died,)  then 
it  is  by  the  death  (i.  e.  the  abrogation  or  satisfaction)  of  the  law 
that  we  are  thus  freed,  even  as  the  woman  is  freed  by  the  death 
of  her  husband.     But  if,  as  all  modern  editors  agree,  dTco&auov- 
T£C  {we  having  died)  is  the  true  reading,  then  it  is  by  our  own 
vicarious  death  in  Christ,  our  having  died  with  him  whose  death 
is  a  satisfaction  to  the  law,  that  we  are  thus  delivered.     This  is 
in  accordance  with  ver.  4,  where  it  is  said  we  died  to  the  law. 
The  apostle  says  we  died  {tootuj)  iv  cp  xarec^ope&a,  (to  that)  by 
which  we  ivere  bound.     The  law  held  us  under  its  authority, 
and,  as  it  were,  in  bondage ;  from  which  bondage  we  have  been 
redeemed  by  death.     So  that,  the  consequence  of  this  freedom 
from  the  law  is,  we  serve  (God)  in  newness  of  the  Spirit,  and  not 
(sin)  in  the  oldness  of  the  letter.     That  is,  we  serve  God  in  a 
new  and  holy  state  due  to  the  Spirit,  which  the  Spirit  has  pro- 
duced, and  not  sin  in,  or  according  to,  the  old  and  corrupt  state 
under  the  law.    Newness  of  the  Spirit  is  that  new  state  of  mind 
of  which  the  Holy  Ghost  is  the  author.      Oldness  of  the  letter  is 
that  old  stat.e  of  which  the  law  is  the  source,  in  so  far  as  it  was 


344  ROMANS  VII.  1—6. 

a  state  of  condemnation  and  enmity  to  God.  That  Uvzoixa  here 
is  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  not  the  human  soul  as  renewed  by  the 
Spirit,  may  be  inferred  from  the  general  usage  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament, and  from  such  parallel  passages  as  Gal.  iii.  3,  2  Cor. 
iii.  6,  in  both  of  which  iivtofxa  means  the  Gospel  as  the  revela- 
tion and  organ  of  the  Spirit.  In  the  latter  passage,  the  apostle 
says,  "the  letter  killeth,  but  the  Spirit  giveth  life."  There,  as 
here,  the  letter,  ypdixfxa,  is  what  is  written.  The  law  is  so  design 
nated  because  the  decalogue,  its  most  important  part,  was  origi- 
nally written  on  stone,  and  because  the  whole  law,  as  revealed 
to  the  Jews,  was  written  in  the  Scriptures,  or  writings.  It  was 
therefore  something  external,  as  opposed  to  what  was  inward 
and  spiritual.  Luther's  version  of  this  passage  gives  the  sense 
in  a  few  words :  "Als  dass  wir  dienen  im  neuen  Wesen  des 
Geistes,  und  nicht  im  alten  Wesen  des  Buchstaben."  Believers 
then  are  free  from  the  law,  by  the  death  of  Christ.  They  are 
no  longer  under  the  old  covenant,  which  said,  "Do  this  and 
live;"  but  are  introduced  into  a  new  and  gracious  state,  in 
which  they  are  accepted,  not  for  what  they  do,  but  for  what 
has  been  done  for  them.  Instead  of  having  the  legal  and 
slavish  spirit  which  arose  from  their  condition  under  the  law, 
they  have  the  feelings  of  children. 


DOCTRINE. 

1.  The  leading  doctrine  of  this  section  is  that  taught  in 
ver.  14  of  the  preceding  chapter,  viz.  that  believers  are  not 
under  a  legal  system;  and  that  th?  consequence  of  their  free- 
dom is  not  the  indulgence  of  sin,  but  the  service  of  God,  ver.  4. 

2.  This  deliverance  from  the  law  is  not  effected  by  setting 
the  law  aside,  or  by  disregarding  its  demands ;  but  by  those 
demands  being  satisfied  in  the  person  of  Christ,  ver.  4,  chap. 
X.  4. 

3.  As  far  as  we  are  concerned,  redemption  is  in  order  to 
holiness.  We  are  delivered  from  the  law,  that  we  may  be 
united  to  Christ ;  and  we  are  united  to  Christ,  that  we  may 
bring  forth  fruit  unto  God,  ver.  4,  &c. 

4.  Legal  or  self-righteous  strivings  after  holiness  can  never 
be  successful.     The  relation  in  which  they  place  the   soul  to 


ROMANS  VII.  1—6.  345 

God  is,  from  its  nature,  productive  of  evil,  and  not  of  holy 
feelings,  ver.  5. 

5.  Actual  freedom  from  the  bondage  and  penalty  of  the  law 
is  always  attended  and  manifested  by  a  filial  temper  and  obedi- 
ence, ver.  6. 

6.  The  doctrine  concerning  marriage,  which  is  here  inci- 
dentally taught,  or  rather  which  is  assumed  as  known  to  Jews 
and  Christians,  is,  that  the  marriage  contract  can  only  be  dis- 
solved by  death.  The  only  exception  to  this  rule  is  given  by 
Christ,  Matt.  v.  32;  unless  indeed  Paul,  in  1  Cor.  vii.  15, 
recognizes  wilful  and  final  desertion  as  a  sufficient  ground  of 
divorce,  vs.  2,  3. 

REMARKS. 

1.  As  the  only  way  in  which  we  can  obtain  deliverance  from 
the  law  is  by  the  death  of  Christ,  the  exercise  of  faith  in  him 
is  essential  to  holiness.  When  we  lose  our  confidence  in  Christ, 
we  fall  under  the  power  of  the  law,  and  relapse  into  sin. 
Everything  depends,  therefore,  upon  our  maintaining  our  union 
with  Christ.     "Without  me,  ye  can  do  nothing,"  ver.  4. 

2.  The  only  evidence  of  union  with  Christ  is  bringing  forth 
fruit  unto  God,  ver.  4. 

3.  As  deliverance  from  the  penalty  of  the  law  is  in  order  to 
holiness,  it  is  vain  to  expect  that  deliverance,  except  with  a 
view  to  the  end  for  which  it  is  granted,  ver.  4. 

4.  Conversion  is  a  great  change ;  sensible  to  him  that  expe- 
riences it,  and  visible  to  others.  It  is  a  change  from  a  legal 
and  slavish  state,  to  one  of  filial  confidence ;  manifesting  itself 
by  the  renunciation  of  the  service  of  sin,  and  by  devotion  to  the 
service  of  God,  ver.  6. 

5.  A  contract  so  lasting  as  that  of  marriage,  and  of  which 
the  consequences  are  so  important,  should  not  be  entered  into 
lightly,  but  in  the  fear  of  God,  vs.  2,  3. 

6.  The  practice,  common  in  many  Protestant  countries  of 
Europe,  and  in  many  States  of  this  Union,  of  granting  divorces 
on  the  ground  of  cruel  treatment  or  'incompatibility  of  temper,' 
is  in  direct  contravention  of  the  doctrines  and  precepts  of  the 
Bible  on  this  subject,  vs.  2,  3, 


346  ROMANS  VII.  7. 


ROMANS  VII.  7—13. 

ANALYSIS. 

Paul,  having  shown  that  we  must  be  delivered  from  the  law, 
in  order  to  our  justification  (chapters  iii.  iv.,)  and  that  this 
freedom  was  no  less  necessary  in  order  to  sanctification  (chap, 
vi.,  chap.  vii.  1 — 6,)  comes  now  to  explain  more  fully  than  he 
had  previously  done,  what  are  the  use  and  efiect  of  the  law. 
This  is  the  object  of  the  residue  of  this  chapter.  The  apostle 
shows,  first,  vs.  7 — 13,  that  the  law  produces  conviction  of  sin, 
agreeably  to  his  declaration  in  chap.  iii.  20;  and,  secondly, 
vs.  14 — 25,  that  it  enlightens  the  believer's  conscience,  but 
cannot  destroy  the  dominion  of  sin.  This  section,  therefore, 
may  be  advantageously  divided  into  two  parts.  Paul  introduces 
the  subject,  as  is  usual  with  him,  by  means  of  an  idea  intimately 
associated  with  the  preceding  discussion.  He  had  been  insisting 
on  the  necessity  of  deliverance  from  the  law.  Why  ?  Because 
it  is  evil  ?  No ;  but  because  it  cannot  produce  holiness.  It  can 
produce  only  the  knowledge  and  the  sense  of  sin ;  which  are  the 
constituents  of  genuine  conviction.  These  two  effects  are  attri- 
buted to  the  operation  of  the  law,  in  vs.  7,  8.  These  ideas  are 
amplified  in  vs.  9 — 11.  The  inference  is  drawn  in  ver.  12,  that 
the  law  is  good;  and  in  ver.  13,  that  the  evil  which  it  incident- 
ally produces  is  to  be  attributed  to  sin,  the  exceeding  turpitude 
of  which  becomes  thus  the  more  apparent. 

COMMENTARY. 

Verse  7.  What  shall  we  say  then?  Is  the  law  sin?  Far  from 
it,  &c.  The  apostle  asks  whether  it  is  to  be  inferred,  either 
from  the  general  doctrine  of  the  preceding  section,  respecting 
the  necessity  of  deliverance  from  the  law,  or  from  the  special 
declaration  made  in  ver.  5,  respecting  the  law  producing  sin, 
that  the  law  was  itself  evil  ?  He  answers,  By  no  means ;  and 
shows,  in  the  next  verse,  that  the  efi"ect  ascribed  to  the  law,  in 
ver.  5,  is  merely  incidental.  Is  the  law  sin?  means  either.  Is 
the  law  evil  ?  or  is  it  the  cause  of  sin  ?  see  Micah  i.  5,  '  Samaria 
is  the  sin  of  Jacob.'     The  former  is  best  suited  to  the  context, 


ROMANS  VII.  7.  347 

because  Paul  admits  that  the  law  is  incidentally  productive  of 
sin.  The  two  ideas,  however,  may  be  united,  as  by  Calvin, 
*'An  peccatum  sic  generet,  ut  illi  imputari  ejus  culpa  debeat;" 
Does  the  law  so  'produce  sin,  as  that  the  fault  is  to  he  imputed  to 
the  law  itself?  Grod  forbid,  fxri  yhotxo;  let  it  not  be  thought 
that  the  law  is  to  blame.  On  the  contrary  {dXhi^  so  far  from 
the  law  being  evil,  it  is  the  source,  and  the  only  source  of 
the  knowledge  of  sin.  /  had  not  knoivn  sin,  but  by  the  law. 
Where  there  is  no  knowledge  of  the  law,  there  can  be  no  con- 
sciousness of  sin ;  for  sin  is  want  of  conformity  to  the  law.  If, 
therefore,  the  standard  of  right  is  not  known,  there  can  be  no 
apprehension  of  our  want  of  conformity  to  it.  By  the  law  here, 
is  to  be  understood  the  moral  law,  however  revealed.  It  is  not 
the  law  of  Moses,  so  far  as  that  law  was  peculiar  and  national, 
but  only  so  far  as  it  contained  the  rule  of  duty.  It  is  not  the 
experience  of  men,  as  determined  by  their  relation  to  the 
Mosaic  dispensation,  but  their  experience  as  determined  by 
their  relation  to  the  moral  law,  that  is  here  depicted.  But  in 
what  sense  does  Paul  here  use  the  pronoun  I?  That  he  does 
not  speak  for  himself  only ;  that  it  is  not  anything  in  his  own 
individual  experience,  peculiar  to  himself,  is  obvious  from  the 
whole  context,  and  is  almost  universally  admitted.  But  if  he 
speaks  representatively,  whom  does  he  represent,  whose  experi- 
ence under  the  operation  of  the  law  is  here  detailed?  Grotius 
says,  that  he  represents  the  Jewish  people,  and  sets  forth  their 
experience  before  and  after  the  introduction  of  the  law  of 
Moses.  This  opinion  was  adopted  by  Locke,  Estius,  and 
recently  by  Reiche.  Others  say  that  he  speaks  out  of  the 
common  consciousness  of  men.  "Das  lyo),  reprfesentirte  sub- 
ject," says  Meyer,  "ist  der  Mensch  iiberhaupt,  in  seiner  rein 
menschlichen  und  naturlichen  Verfassung."  The  experience 
detailed  is  that  of  the  natural  or  unrenewed  man  throughout. 
This  view  is  the  one  generally  adopted  by  modern  commenta- 
tors. Others  again  say,  that  Paul  is  here  speaking  as  a  Christ- 
ian ;  he  is  giving  his  own  religious  experience  of  the  operation 
of  the  law,  as  that  experience  is  common  to  all  true  believers. 
This  does  not  necessarily  suppose  that  the  preliminary  exercises, 
as  detailed  in  vs.  7 — 13,  are  peculiar  to  the  renewed.  There  is 
a  "law  work,"  a  work  of  conviction  which,  in  its  apparent 


348  ROMANS  VII.  7. 

characteristics,  is  common  to  the  renewed  and  the  unrenewed. 
Many  are  truly  and  deeply  convinced  of  sin ;  many  experience 
all  that  the  law  in  itself  can  produce,  who  are  never  regene- 
rated. Nevertheless,  the  experience  here  exhibited  is  the  expe- 
rience of  every  renewed  man.  It  sets  forth  the  work  of  the  law 
first  in  the  work  of  conviction,  vs.  7 — 13,  and  afterwards  in 
reference  to  the  holy  life  of  the  Christian.  This  is  the  Angus- 
tinian  view  of  the  bearing  of  this  passage  adopted  by  the 
Lutherans  and  Reformed,  and  still  held  by  the  great  body  of 
evangelical  Christians. 

I  had  not  known  sin.  There  are  two  kinds  of  knowledge. 
The  one  has  for  its  object  mere  logical  relations,  and  is  a  matter 
of  the  intellect;  the  other  has  for  its  object  both  the  logical 
relations  and  the  qualities,  moral  or  otherwise,  of  the  thing 
known,  and  is  a  matter  of  the  feelings  as  well  as  of  the  intel- 
lect. The  kind  of  knowledge  of  which  the  apostle  speaks  is  not 
mere  intellectual  cognition,  but  also  conviction.  It  includes  the 
consciousness  of  guilt  and  pollution.  The  law  awakened  in  him 
the  knowledge  of  his  own  state  and  character.  He  felt  himself 
to  be  a  sinner ;  and  by  a  sinner  is  to  be  understood  not  merely 
a  transgressor,  but  one  in  whom  sin  dwells.  It  was  the  cor- 
ruption of  his  nature  which  was  revealed  to  the  apostle  by  the 
operation  of  the  law.  This  sense  of  the  word  tjiapzia  in  this 
context  is  almost  universally  admitted.  "Die  d-fiapzia,''  says 
Meyer,  "  ist  das  principe  der  Sunde  im  Menschen  (1.  v.  8.  9. 11. 
13.  14.),  dessen  wir  erst  durch  das  Gesetz  uns  bewusst  werden, 
und  welches  ohne  das  Gesetz  unbewusst  geblieben  ware."  That 
is,  "  The  S-fiapvia  is  the  principle  of  sin  in  men,  of  which  we 
become  conscious  through  the  law,  and  of  which  we  would  with- 
out the  law  have  remained  unconscious."  So  De  Wette,  Tho- 
luck,  Ruckert,  Kollner,  Olshausen,  and  Philippi,  among  the 
modern  commentators,  as  well  as  the  older  doctrinal  expositors. 

For  I  had  not  known  lust,  except  the  law  had  said,  Thou  shalt 
not  covet.  This  may  be  understood  as  merely  an  illustration  of 
the  preceding  declaration :  '  I  had  not  known  sin  but  by  the 
law.  For  example,  I  had  not  known  lust,  except  the  law  had 
said,  Thou  shalt  not  covet.'  According  to  this  view,  there  is 
no  difference  between  sin  and  lust,  {Lftapzla  and  ivtiSupLca,  except 
that  the  latter  is  specific,  and  the  former  general.     Lust  falls 


ROMANS  VII.  8.  349 

under  the  general  category  of  sin.  But  according  to  this  inter- 
pretation, neither  kiiapxia  nor  iyvcov  {sin  nor  know)  receives  the 
full  force  which  the  connection  requires.  This  clause,  there- 
fore, is  not  simply  an  illustration,  but  a  confirmation  of  the 
preceding :  '  I  had  not  known  sin,  but  by  the  law ;  for  I  had 
not  known  lust,  except  the  law  had  said,  Thou  shalt  not  covet.' 
That  is,  '  From  the  consciousness  of  desire  striving  against  the 
law,  arose  the  conviction  of  the  principle  of  sin  within  me.' 
Desire  revealed  as  evil  by  the  law,  itself  revealed  the  evil 
source  whence  it  springs.  The  word  knc&ofxla  means  simply 
earnest  desire,  and  the  verb  im&ufxs(o  is  to  desire  earnestly.  It 
depends  on  the  context  whether  the  desire  be  good  or  bad, 
"whether  it  is  directed  towards  what  is  lawful  or  what  is  forbid- 
den. In  the  tenth  commandment,  here  quoted,  the  meaning  is, 
Thou  shalt  not  desire  to  have  (i.  e.  thou  shalt  not  covet)  that 
which  belongs  to  another.  The  point  of  the  apostle's  argument 
is,  that  his  knowledge  of  sin  is  due  to  the  law,  because  without 
the  law  he  would  not  have  known  that  mere  desire  is  evil,  and 
because  these  evil  desires  revealed  the  hidden  source  of  sin  in 
his  nature. 

Verse  8.  But  sin,  taking  occasion  hy  the  commandment, 
wrought  in  me  all  manner  of  concupiscence.  This  verse  is  not 
logically  connected  with  the  preceding.  It  is  rather  coordinate 
with  it,  and  is  a  virtual,  or  rather,  an  additional  answer  to  the 
question,  Is  the  law  evil  ?  To  this  question  Paul  replies.  No ; 
on  the  contrary,  it  leads  to  the  knowledge  of  sin.  And  hence 
he  adds,  It  is  not  evil  in  itself,  although  incidentally  the  cause 
of  sin  in  us.  By  sin,  in  this  case,  cannot  be  understood  actual 
sin.  It  must  mean  indwelling  sin,  or  corruption  of  nature; 
sin  as  the  principle  or  source  of  action,  and  not  as  an  act. 
^^"A/uaprca  non  potest  esse  hoc  loco  peccatum  ipsum,"  says 
Koppe,  "  sed  ipsa  potius  prava  et  ad  peccandum  proclivis  indo- 
les, vitiosa  hominis  natura,  vitiositas  ipsa."  To  the  same  effect, 
Olshausen :  "Aus  der  allgemeinen  siindhaften  natur  des  Men- 
schen  geht  die  iTri&Ujuca,  prava  coneupiscentia,  als  erste  Ausse- 
rung  hervor  und  dann  folgt  erst  die  That."  That  is,  from  sin 
immanent  in  our  nature,  comes  first  desire,  and  then  the  act. 
Thus  Kollner  says,  ^^im&upcav,  so  von  d/jtapzia  verschieden, 
dass   diese    das    gleichsam    im   Menschen    ruhende    sUndliche 


350  ROMANS  VII.  8. 

Princip  bezeichnet,  iTte&ofjica  aber  die  im  einzelnen  Falle 
wirksame  bose  Lust,  ganz  eigentlicb  die  Begierde,  die  dann 
zunachst  zur  Siinde  in  conereto  fiirbt."  Such  is  plainly  the 
meaning  of  the  apostle.  There  is  a  principle  of  sin,  a  corrup- 
tion of  nature  which  lies  back  of  all  conscious  voluntary  exer- 
cises, to  which  they  owe  their  origin.  ' ETiid^ofica,  feeling^  the 
first  form  in  which  sin  is  revealed  in  the  consciousness,  springs 
from  dfiapzca.  This  is  a  truth  of  great  importance.  According 
to  the  theology  and  religious  conviction  of  the  apostle,  sin  can 
be  predicated  not  only  of  acts,  but  also  of  inward  states. 

Sin  taking  occasion,  d<popiuTJv,  opportunity  or  advantage,  Jy 
the  commandment,  i.  e.  the  command,  "Thou  shalt  not  covet." 
A  part  is  taken  for  the  whole.  This  special  precept  (iuzo^) 
stands,  by  way  of  illustration,  for  the  whole  law.  The  words 
dia  r^c  cvro^.iyc,  ^^  the  commandjnent,  may  be  taken  with  the 
preceding  clause,  'taking  advantage  of  the  commandment.'  In 
favour  of  this  construction  is  the  position  of  the  words,  and,  as 
is  supposed,  the  di'  amrfi  in  ver.  11,  which,  it  is  said,  cor- 
responds to  these  words  in  this  verse.  This  is  the  construction 
which  is  adopted  by  our  translators,  and  by  many  commenta- 
tors. Others  prefer  connecting  the  words  in  question  with  what 
follows — "by  the  commandment  wrought  in  me."  In  favour 
of  this  is  the  fact,  that  the  main  idea  of  the  passage  is  thus 
brought  out.  The  apostle  designs  to  show  how  the  law,  although 
good  in  itself,  produced  evil:  '  Sin  wrought  by  it.'  Besides,  the 
phrase  dipopfxr^v  )Mfi^dvecv  kx,  or  Ttapd,  or  dTio,  is  common,  but 
with  dtd  it  never  occurs :  dtd  is  not  the  appropriate  preposition ; 
whereas  y.axzpyd^ta&at  bid  is  perfectly  appropriate.  'Wrought 
in  me  all  manner  of  concupiscence,  Tzaaav  kntd-uiiiav,  every  (evil) 
desire. 

For  without  the  law  sin  {was)  dead.  This  is  designed  as  a 
confirmation  of  the  preceding  declaration.  This  confirmation 
is  drawn  either  from  a  fact  of  Paul's  personal  experience,  or 
from  an  universally  admitted  truth.  If  the  former,  then  we 
must  supply  was:  '  Sin  is  excited  by  the  law,  for  without  the 
law  sin  was  dead  ;'  i.  e.  I  was  not  aware  of  its  existence.  If  the 
latter,  then  is  is  to  be  supplied:  'Without  the  law  sin  is  dead.' 
This  is  an  undisputed  fact :  '  Where  there  is  no  law  there  is  no 
sin ;  and  where  is  no  knowledge  of  law  there  is  no  knowledge 


ROMANS  VII.  9.  351 

of  sin.  The  latter  view  best  suits  the  context.  To  say  that  a 
thing  is  dead,  is  to  say  that  it  is  inactive,  unproductive,  and 
unobserved.  All  this  may  be  said  of  sin  prior  to  the  operation 
of  the  law.  It  is  comparatively  inoperative  and  unknown,  until 
aroused  and  brought  to  light  by  the  law.  There  are  two  effects 
of  the  law  included  in  this  declaration — the  excitement  of  evil 
passions,  and  the  discovery  of  them.  Calvin  makes  the  latter 
much  the  more  prominent :  "Ad  cognitionem  proecipue  refero, 
acsi  dictum  foret :  Detexit  in  me  omnem  concupiscentiam ;  quae 
dum  lateret,  quodammodo  nulla  esse  videbatur."  But  the  con- 
text, and  the  analogous  declarations  in  the  succeeding  verses, 
seem  to  require  the  former  to  be  considered  as  the  more  impor- 
tant. The  law  then  is  not  evil,  but  it  produces  the  conviction 
of  sin,  by  teaching  us  what  sin  is,  ver.  7,  and  by  making  us 
conscious  of  the  existence  and  power  of  this  evil  in  our  own 
hearts,  ver.  8.  "Ehe  dem  Menschen  ein  vofxoQ  entweder  von 
aussen  gegeben  wird,  oder  in  ihm  selbst  sich  entwickelt,  so  ist 
die  Slindhaftigkeit  zwar  in  ihm,  als  Anlage,  aber  sie  ist  todt, 
d.  h.  sie  ist  ihm  noch  nicht  zum  Bewusstseyn  gekommen,  well 
noch  kein  Widerstreit  zwischen  seiner  Slindhaftigkeit  und 
einem  Gebote  in  ihm  entstehen  konnte."  Usteri  Lehrhegriff 
Pauli,  p  25.  Such  is  certainly  the  experience  of  Christians. 
They  live  at  ease.  Conscience  is  at  rest.  They  think  them- 
selves to  be  as  good  as  can  be  reasonably  required  of  them. 
They  have  no  adequate  conception  of  the  power  or  heinousness 
of  the  evil  within  them.  Sin  lies,  as  it  were,  dead,  as  the  torpid 
serpent,  until  the  operation  of  the  law  rouses  it  from  its  slum- 
bers, and  reveals  its  character. 

Verse  9.  For  I  was  alive  without  the  law  once,  &c.  The 
meaning  of  this  clause  is  necessarily  determined  by  what  pre- 
cedes. If  by  sin  being  dead  means  its  lying  unnoticed  and 
unknown,  then  by  being  alive,  Paul  must  mean  that  state  of 
security  and  comparative  exemption  from  the  turbulence  or 
manifestation  of  sin  in  his  heart,  which  he  then  experienced. 
He  fancied  himself  in  a  happy  and  desirable  condition.  He  had 
no  dread  of  punishment,  no  painful  consciousness  of  sin.  But 
when  the  commandment  came,  i.  e.  came  to  his  knowledge,  was 
revealed  to  him  in  its  authority  and  in  the  extent  and  spiritu- 
ality of  its  demands,  sin  revived;  i.  e.  it  was  roused  from  its 


852  ROMANS  VII.  10. 

torpor.  It  was  revealed  in  his  consciousness  by  its  greater 
activity ;  so  that  the  increase  of  his  knowledge  of  sin  was  due 
to  an  increase  in  its  activity.  And  I  died.  As  by  being  alive 
was  meant  being  at  ease  in  a  fancied  state  of  security  and  good- 
ness, being  dead  must  mean  just  the  opposite,  viz.  a  state  of 
misery  arising  from  a  sense  of  danger  and  the  consciousness 
of  guilt.  This  interpretation  is  recommended  not  only  by  its 
agreement  with  the  whole  context,  but  also  from  its  accordance 
with  the  common  experience  of  Christians.  Every  believer  can 
adopt  the  language  of  the  apostle.  He  can  say  he  was  alive 
without  the  law ;  he  was  secure  and  free  from  any  painful  con- 
sciousness of  sin ;  but  when  the  commandment  came,  when  he 
was  brought  to  see  how  holy  and  how  broad  is  the  law  of  God, 
sin  was  aroused  and  revealed,  and  all  his  fancied  security  and 
goodness  disappeared.  He  was  bowed  down  under  the  con- 
viction of  his  desert  of  death  as  a  penalty,  and  under  the  power 
of  spiritual  death  in  his  soul.  "Mors  peccati,"  says  Calvin, 
"vita  est  hominis;  rursum  vita  peccati  mors  hominis." 

The  questions,  however — When  was  Paul,  or  those  in  whose 
name  he  speaks,  without  the  law  ?  In  what  sense  was  he  then 
alive?  What  is  meant  by  the  commandment  coming?  In  what 
sense  did  sin  revive  ?  and,  What  does  Paul  mean  when  he  says, 
he  died  ? — are  all  answered  by  different  commentators  in  differ- 
ent ways,  according  to  their  different  views  of  the  context  and 
of  the  design  of  the  argument.  Grotius  and  others  say,  that 
being  without  the  law  designates  the  ante-Mosaic  period  of  the 
Jewish  history,  when  the  people  lived  in  comparative  innocence ; 
the  law  came  when  it  was  promulgated  from  Mount  Sinai,  and 
under  its  discipline  they  became  worse  and  worse,  or  at  least 
sin  was  rendered  more  and  more  active  among  them.  Others 
say,  that  Paul  was  without  the  law  in  his  childhood,  when 
he  was  in  a  state  of  childish  innocence ;  but  when  he  came  to 
years  of  discretion,  and  the  law  was  revealed  within  him,  then 
he  died — then  he  fell  under  the  power  of  sin.  These  interpre- 
tations give  a  much  lower  sense  than  the  one  above-mentioned, 
and  are  not  in  keeping  with  the  grand  design  of  the  passage. 

Verse  10.  And  the  commandment  which  was  unto  life,  I 
found  to  he  unto  death.  The  law  was  designed  and  adapted  to 
secure  life,  but  became  in  fact  the  cause  of  death.     Life  and 


ROMANS  VII.  11.  358 

death,  as  here  opposed,  are  figurative  terms.  Life  includes  the 
ideas  of  happiness  and  holiness.  The  law  was  designed  to  make 
men  happy  and  holy.  Death,  on  the  other  hand,  includes  the 
ideas  of  misery  and  sin.  The  law  became,  through  no  fault  of 
its  own,  the  means  of  rendering  the  apostle  miserable  and 
sinful.  How  vain  therefore  is  it  to  expect  salvation  from  the 
law,  since  all  the  law  does,  in  its  operation  on  the  unrenewed 
heart,  is  to  condemn  and  to  awaken  opposition!  It  cannot 
change  the  nature  of  man.  By  the  law  is  the  knowledge  of 
sin,  iii.  20;  it  produces  "the  motions  of  sin,"  ver.  5;  it  "works 
all  manner  of  concupiscence,"  ver.  8;  it  revives  sin,  ver.  9;  it 
seduces  into  sin,  ver.  11.  How  then  can  it  save  ?  How  mise- 
rable and  deluded  are  those  who  have  only  a  legal  religion ! 

Verse  11.  For  sin,  taking  occasion  by  the  commandment, 
deceived  wze,  and  by  it  slew  me.  The  law  is  the  cause  of  death, 
ver.  10,  for  by  it  sin  deceived  and  slew  me.  The  two  ideas 
before  insisted  upon  are  again  here  presented — viz.  the  law,  so 
far  from  giving  life,  is  the  source  of  death,  spiritual  and  penal ; 
and  yet  the  fault  is  not  in  the  law,  but  in  sin,  i.  e.  in  our  own 
corrupt  nature.  Here,  as  in  ver.  8,  two  constructions  are  pos- 
sible. We  may  say,  '  Sin  took  occasion  by  the  commandment ;' 
or,  "^  Sin  taking  occasion,  by  the  commandment  deceived  me.' 
For  reasons  mentioned  above,  ver.  8,  the  latter  is  to  be  pre- 
ferred :  Sin  deceived  me,  k^i^ndrrjat.  The  ix  is  intensive :  '  It 
completely  deceived  me,  or  disappointed  my  expectations.' 
How  ?  By  leading  the  apostle  to  expect  one  things  while  he 
experienced  another.  He  expected  life,  and  found  death.  He 
expected  happiness,  and  found  misery ;  he  looked  for  holiness, 
and  found  increased  corruption.  He  fancied  that  by  the  law 
all  these  desirable  ends  could  be  secured,  when  its  operation 
was  discovered  to  produce  the  directly  opposite  effects.  Sin 
therefore  deceived  by  the  commandment,  and  by  it  slew  him, 
instead  of  its  being  to  him  the  source  of  holiness  and  blessed- 
ness. The  reference  is  not  to  the  promised  joys  of  sin,  which 
always  mock  the  expectation  and  disappoint  the  hopes,  but 
rather  to  the  utter  failure  of  the  law  to  do  what  he  expected 
from  it.  Such  is  the  experience  of  every  believer,  in  the 
ordinary  progress  of  his  inward  life.  He  first  turns  to  the 
law,  to  his  own  righteousness  and  strength,  but  he  soon  finds 
23 


354  ROMANS  VII.  12,  13. 

that  all  the  law  can  do  is  only  to  aggravate  his  guilt  and 
misery. 

Verse  12.  Wherefore  the  law  is  holy,  and  the  commandment 
holy,  just,  and  good.  This  is  the  conclusion  from  the  preceding 
exhibition.  The  law  is  not  evil,  ver.  5.  Sin  is  the  true  source 
of  all  the  evil  which  incidentally  flows  from  the  law.  In  itself 
the  law  is  holy,  (i.  e.  the  whole  law,)  and  the  commandment, 
i.  e.  the  specific  command,  "Thou  shalt  not  covet,"  is  holy, 
just,  and  good.  That  is,  it  is  in  every  aspect  what  it  should  be. 
It  is  in  every  way  excellent.  It  is  holy  as  the  revelation  of  the 
holiness  of  God ;  it  is  in  its  own  nature  right,  and  it  is  good, 
i.  e.  excellent.  In  the  next  verse  all  these  attributes  are  sum- 
med up  in  one,  ro  dyad^ov,  goodness.  Hence  this  is  probably 
the  generic  term  of  which  the  others  are  the  species.  "  Lex 
ipsa,"  says  Calvin,  "et  quicquid  lege  prascipitur,  id  totum  sanc- 
tum est,  ergo  summa  dignitate  reverendum ;  justum,  ergo  nuUius 
injustitise  insimulandum ;  bonum,  ergo  omni  vitio  purum  ac 
vacuum." 

Verse  13.  Was  then  that  which  is  good  made  death  unto  me  f 
Grod  forbid.  In  order  to  prevent  the  possibility  of  misconcep- 
tion, the  apostle  again  vindicates  the  law.  To  ouu  dfadbv, 
k/j.oc  yeyovB  d^dvaroz,  Has  the  good  become  death  to  me  ?  Grod 
forbid.  ^AXXa,  on  the  contrary,  ^  d.[j.apTia  {kfiol  yiyoue  d^dvaTO(;) 
sin  (has  become  death  to  me.)  Not  the  law,  but  sin  is  the  cause 
of  death.  And  it  is  made  so,  ha  (pavrj  6.fiapvia,  did.  rou  djad^ou 
fiot  xaTEpya^ojikv-q  d^dvaxov,  in  order  that  it  may  appear  sin, 
working  in  me  death  by  means  of  good.  The  true  character  of 
sin,  as  sin,  is  revealed  by  its  making  even  that  which  is  in 
itself  good,  the  means  of  evil.  In  order  that  it  might  become 
exceeding  sinful  by  the  commandment.  God  has  so  ordered  it, 
that  the  sinfulness  of  sin  is  brought  out  by  the  operation  of  the 
law.  Such  is  the  design  of  the  law,  so  far  as  the  salvation  of 
sinners  is  concerned.  It  does  not  prescribe  the  conditions 
of  salvation.  We  are  not  obliged  to  be  sinless ;  in  other  words, 
we  are  not  obliged  to  fulfil  the  demands  of  the  law,  in  order  to 
be  saved.  Neither  is  the  law  the  means  of  sanctification.  It 
cannot  make  us  holy.  On  the  contrary,  its  operation  is  to 
excite  and  exasperate  sin ;  to  render  its  power  more  dreadful 
and  destructive,  so  that  instead  of  being  the  source  of  life,  it  is 


ROMANS  VII.  7—13.  355 

the  instrument  of  death.  By  it  we  are  slain.  The  construction 
of  this  passage,  given  above,  is  that  which  the  words  demand, 
and  which  almost  all  modern  commentators  adopt.  Calvin, 
Luther,  the  English  translators,  and  many  others,  make  6.[iapTca 
the  subject  of  xaTzpya^ojievf]  (/yv)  taken  as  a  verb :  Sin  wrought 
death.  The  sense  thus  expressed  is  good ;  but  this  construction 
does  violence  to  the  words,  as  it  converts  a  participle  into  a 
verb. 

DOCTRINE. 

1.  The  law,  although  it  cannot  secure  either  the  justification 
or  sanctification  of  men,  performs  an  essential  part  in  the 
economy  of  salvation.  It  enlightens  conscience,  and  secures  its 
verdict  against  a  multitude  of  evils,  which  we.  should  not  other- 
wise have  recognized  as  sins.  It  arouses  sin,  increasing  its 
power,  and  making  it,  both  in  itself  and  in  our  consciousness, 
exceedingly  sinful.  It  therefore  produces  that  state  of  mind 
which  is  a  necessary  preparation  for  the  reception  of  the 
gospel,  vs.  7,  8. 

2.  Conviction  of  sin,  that  is,  an  adequate  knowledge  of  its 
nature,  and  a  sense  of  its  power  over  us,  is  an  indispensable 
part  of  evangelical  religion.  Before  the  gospel  can  be  embraced 
as  a  means  of  deliverance  from  sin,  we  must  feel  that  we  are 
involved  in  corruption  and  misery,  ver.  9. 

3.  The  law  of  God  is  a  transcript  of  his  own  nature — holy, 
just,  and  good.  The  clearer  our  views  of  its  extent  and  excel- 
lence, the  deeper  will  be  our  sense  of  our  own  unworthiness, 
vs.  9,  12. 

4.  Sin  is  exceedingly  sinful.  Its  turpitude  is  manifested  by 
the  fact,  that  the  exhibition  of  holiness  rouses  it  into  opposi- 
tion ;  and  that  the  holy  law  itself  is  made  incidentally  to 
increase  its  virulence  and  power,  ver.  13. 

5.  Sin  is  very  deadly.  It  extracts  death  from  the  means  of 
life,  and  cannot  exist  unattended  by  misery,  vs.  10 — 13. 

REMARKS. 

1.  How  miserable  the  condition  of  those  whose  religion  is  all 
law !  vs.  7—13. 

2.  Though  the  law  cannot  save  us,  it  must  prepare  us  for 


356  ROMANS  VII.  14—25. 

vSalvation.     It   should,   therefore,    be   carefully  and   faithfully 
preached,  both  in  its  extent  and  authority,  vs.  7,  8. 

3.  It  must  be  wrong  and  productive  of  evil,  so  to  describe 
the  nature  of  evangelical  religion  as  to  make  the  impression 
that  it  is  a  mere  change  in  the  main  object  of  pursuit — the 
choice  of  one  source  of  happiness  in  preference  to  another.  It 
is  a  return  to  God,  through  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  purpose  of 
being  delivered  from  sin,  and  devoted  to  his  service.  Its  first 
step  is  the  conviction  that  we  are  sinners,  and,  as  such,  dead, 
i,  e.  helpless,  corrupt,  and  miserable,  vs.  7,  13. 

4.  Nothing  is  more  inconsistent  with  true  religion  than  self- 
complacency.  Because  the  more  holy  we  are,  the  clearer  our 
views  of  God's  law ;  and  the  clearer  our  views  of  the  law,  the 
deeper  our  sense  of  sin,  and,  consequently,  the  greater  must  be 
our  humility,  vs.  12,  13. 

5.  If  our  religious  experience  does  not  correspond  with  that 
of  the  people  of  God,  as  detailed  in  the  Scriptures,  we  cannot 
be  true  Christians.  Unless  we  have  felt  as  Paul  felt,  we  have 
not  the  religion  of  Paul,  and  cannot  expect  to  share  his  reward, 
vs.  7—13. 


ROMANS  VII.  14—25. 

ANALYSIS. 

The  apostle,  having  exhibited  the  operation  of  the  law  in 
producing  conviction  of  sin,  comes  now  to  show  its  effect  on  the 
mind  of  the  believer.  It  cannot  secure  his  sanctification.  The 
cause  of  this  inability  is  not  in  the  evil  nature  of  the  law,  which 
is  spiritual,  ver.  14,  but  in  the  power  of  indwelling  sin ;  "  I  am 
carnal,"  says  the  apostle,  "sold  under  sin,"  ver.  14.  As  this 
is  not  only  a  strong,  but  an  ambiguous  expression,  Paul  imme- 
diately explains  his  meaning.  He  does  not  intend  to  say  that 
he  was  given  up  to  the  willing  service  of  sin ;  but  that  he  was 
in  the  condition  of  a  slave,  whose  acts  are  not  always  the 
evidence  of  his  inclination.  His  will  may  be  one  way,  but  his 
master  may  direct  him  another.  So  it  is  with  the  believer.  He 
does  what  he  hates,  and  omits  to  do  what  he  approves,  ver.  15. 


ROMANS  VII.  14.  §57 

This  is  a  description  of  slavery,  and  a  clear  explanation  of  what 
is  intended  by  the  expression  "sold  under  sin."  There  are  two 
obvious  inferences  to  be  drawn  from  this  fact.  The  one  is,  that 
the  believer,  while  denying  the  sufficiency  of  the  law,  and  main- 
taining the  necessity  of  deliverance  from  it,  bears  an  inward 
testimony  to  its  excellence.  He  feels  and  admits  that  the  law 
is  good,  ver.  16 ;  for  it  is  the  law  which  he  approves,  and  the 
transgression  of  it  he  hates,  as  stated  in  the  preceding  verse. 
The  second  inference  is,  that  acts  thus  performed  are  not  the 
true  criterion  of  character:  "Now  then,  it  is  no  more  I  that  do 
it,  but  sin  that  dwelleth  in  me,"  ver.  17.  The  acts  of  a  slave 
are  indeed  his  own  acts ;  but  not  being  performed  with  the  full 
assent  and  consent  of  his  soul,  they  are  not  fair  tests  of  the  real 
state  of  his  feelings.  The  propriety  and  truth  of  this  repre- 
sentation of  the  state  of  the  believer,  and  of  the  influence  of  the 
law,  is  reasserted  and  confirmed  in  vs.  18 — 20.  The  law  pre- 
sents duty  clearly:  the  heart  and  conscience  of  the  believer 
assent  to  its  excellence ;  but  what  can  the  law  do  in  destroying 
the  power  of  our  inward  corruptions?  These  evil  principles 
remain,  so  far  as  the  law  is  concerned,  in  full  force.  The 
authoritative  declaration  that  a  thing  must  not  be  done,  does 
not  destroy  the  inclination  to  do  it. 

The  result,  therefore,  is,  that  notwithstanding  the  assent  of 
the  mind  to  the  excellence  of  the  law,  the  power  of  sin  remains, 
so  that  when  we  would  do  good,  evil  is  present  with  us,  ver.  21. 
We  delight  in  the  law  after  the  inward  man,  but  this  does  not 
destroy  the  power  of  sin  in  our  members,  vs.  22,  23.  This 
inward  conflict  the  law  can  never  end.  It  only  makes  us  sensi- 
ble of  our  helpless  and  degraded  condition,  ver.  24;  and  drives 
us  to  seek  victory,  whence  alone  it  can  be  obtained,  i.  e.  as  the 
gift  of  God  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord,  ver.  25. 

COMMENTARY. 

Verse  14.  For  ive  hnoiv  that  the  law  is  spiritual;  hut  I  am 
carnal,  sold  under  sin.  The  connection  between  this  verse  and 
the  preceding  passage  seems  to  be  this :  It  had  been  asserted 
in  ver.  5,  that  the  law  was  incidentally  the  cause  of  sin. 
This  result,  however,  was  no  reflection  on  the  law;  for  it  was 


358  ROMANS  VII.  14. 

holy,  just,  and  good,  ver.  12.  As  the  fact  that  the  law  excites 
sin  is  consistent  with  its  being  good,  so  is  also  the  fact  that  it 
cannot  destroy  the  power  of  sin.  The  law  indeed  is  spiritual, 
but  we  are  carnal.  The  fault  is  again  in  us.  The  yap  thus 
introduces  the  confirmation  of  the  whole  preceding  argument. 
If  the  connection  is  with  ver.  13,  the  sense  is  substantially  the 
same:  'Sin,  and  not  the  law,  works  death;  for  the  law  is 
spiritual,  but  I  am  carnal.'  The  apostle  says,  ol'dajutsu  ydp, 
"for  we  know."  It  is  among  Christians  an  acknowledged  and 
obvious  truth,  that  the  law  is  spiritual.  This  is  probably  the 
reason  that  in  this  case  he  uses  the  plural  tve  instead  of  the 
singular  /,  which  occurs  everywhere  else  in  this  connection. 
Semler,  indeed,  and  others,  to  preserve  uniformity,  proposes  to 
read  olda  fikv  ydp,  1  know  indeed^  instead  of  we  know.  But 
then  there  would  be  no  de  corresponding  to  the  [xiv.  The  iyo) 
de  is  opposed  to  vo/utoi;,  and  not  to  iy^o  in  o23a.  The  apostle 
would  have  said,  '  The  law  indeed  is  spiritual,  but  I  am  carnal,' 
and  not,  'I  indeed  know,'  &c.  The  common  division  of  the 
words  is  therefore  almost  universally  adopted. 

The  law  is  said  to  be  spiritual,  not  because  it  pertains  to  our 
spirits,  reaching,  as  Beza  says,  to  the  interior  man,  ("mentem 
et  interiorem  hominem  respicit;")  much  less  because  it  is  rea- 
sonable,  or  in  accordance  with  the  Tti^eujua  as  the  higher  faculty 
of  our  nature ;  nor  because  it  was  given  by  inspiration  of  the 
Spirit;  but  as  expressing  its  nature.  It  is  spiritual  in  the 
sense  of  being  Divine,  or  as  partaking  of  the  nature  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  its  divine  Author.  This  epithet  includes,  therefore,  all 
that  was  before  expressed,  by  saying  that  the  law  is  holy,  just, 
and  good.  But  I  am  carnal.  The  word  in  the  common  text  is 
(Tapxixo^.  Griesbach,  Lachmann,  and  Tischendorf,  on  the  author- 
ity of  the  older  manuscripts,  and  of  the  Fathers,  read  adpxivo^. 
The  difference  between  these  words,  (when  they  are  distin- 
guished,) is,  that  the  former  expresses  the  nature,  the  latter  the 
substance  out  of  which  a  thing  is  made ;  so  that  adpxcvoq  means 
made  of  flesh,  fleshy,  corpulent.  This  is  agreeable  to  the  analogy 
of  words  in  evoQ,  Xi&tvo^,  made  of  stone;  ^oXcvo^,  made  of  wood. 
This,  however,  is  not  an  uniform  rule,  as  dvd^ptmivoc,  means  hu- 
man. In  2  Cor.  iii.  3,  the  Avord  adpxcvoc,  is  used  in  its  strict  sense, 
where,  Iv  TtXa^i  xapoiat;  aapxivacQ  (in  tables  of  the  heart  made 


ROMANS  VII.  14.  359 

of  flesh,)  it  is  opposed  to  i.v  TtXa^c  Xi&ivac<;  (tables  made  of  stone.) 
Even  if  trdpxivoc;,  in  this  case,  is  the  true  reading,  it  must  have 
the  same  sense  as  the  more  common  word  aapxcxoi;,  which,  for 
internal  reasons,  the  majority  of  commentators  prefer.  As 
spiritual  expresses  the  nature  of  the  law,  so  carnal  must  express 
the  nature,  and  not  the  material.  I  am  carnal  means  I  am 
under  the  power  of  the  flesh.  And  by  flesh  is  meant  not  the 
body,  not  our  sensuous  nature  merely,  but  our  whole  nature  as 
fallen  and  corrupt.  It  includes  all  that  belongs  to  men,  apart 
from  the  Holy  Spirit.  In  the  language  of  the  New  Testament, 
the  izueufxaTixoi,  spiritual,  are  those  who  are  under  the  control 
of  the  Spirit  of  God ;  and  the  aapxtxoi  are  those  who  are  under 
the  control  of  their  own  nature.  As,  however,  even  in  the 
renewed,  this  control  of  the  Spirit  is  never  perfect,  as  the  flesh 
even  in  them  retains  much  of  its  original  power,  they  are 
forced  to  acknowledge  that  they  too  are  carnal.  There  is  no 
believer,  however  advanced  in  holiness,  who  cannot  adopt  the 
language  here  used  by  the  apostle.  In  1  Cor.  iii.  3,  in 
addressing  believers,  he  says,  "Are  ye  not  carnal?"  In  the 
imperfection  of  human  language  the  same  word  must  be  taken 
in  difi'erent  senses.  Sometimes  carnal  means  entirely  or 
exclusively  under  the  control  of  the  flesh.  It  designates  those 
in  whom  the  flesh  is  the  only  principle  of  action.  At  other 
times  it  has  a  modified  sense,  and  is  applicable  to  those  who, 
although  under  the  dominion, of  the  Spirit,  are  still  polluted 
and  influenced  by  the  flesh.  It  is  the  same  with  all  similar 
words.  When  we  speak  of  'saints  and  sinners'  we  do  not 
mean  that  saints,  such  as  they  are  in  this  world,  are  not 
sinners.  And  thus  when  the  Scriptures  classify  men  as  nueofjiaTi- 
xoi  and  aapxixoi,  spiritual  and  carnal,  they  do  not  mean  to 
teach  that  the  spiritual  are  not  carnal.  It  is,  therefore,  only 
by  giving  the  words  here  used  their  extreme  sense,  a  sense 
inconsistent  with  the  context,  that  they  can  be  regarded  as 
inapplicable  to  the  regenerated.  The  mystical  writers,  such  as 
Olshausen,  in  accordance  with  the  theory  which  so  many  of 
them  adopt,  that  man  consists  of  three  subjects  or  substances, 
body,  soul,  and  spirit,  ocopa,  (puyij  and  Ttveupia,  say  that  by 
adp^,  in  such  connections,  we  are  to  understand  das  game 
seelische  Leben,  the  entire  psychical  life,  which  only,  and  not 


360  ROMANS  VII.  14. 

the  Tzvtofia,  (the  spirit  or  higher  element  of  our  nature,)  is 
in  man  the  seat  of  sin.  In  angels,  on  the  contrary,  the 
TCi^su/jta  itself  is  the  seat  of  sin,  and  they  therefore  are  incapable 
of  redemption.  And  in  man,  when  sin  invades  the  nveufia^ 
(spirit)  then  comes  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost,  and 
redemption  becomes  impossible.  This  is  only  a  refined  or 
mystical  rationalism,  as  Trueu/jta  is  only  another  name  for 
reason,  and  the  conflict  in  man  is  reduced  to  the  struggle 
between  sense  and  reason,  and  redemption  consists  in  giving 
the  higher  powers  of  our  nature  ascendency  over  the  lower. 
According  to  the  Scriptures,  the  whole  of  our  fallen  nature  is 
the  seat  of  sin,  and  our  subjective  redemption  from  its  power 
is  eifected,  not  by  making  reason  predominant,  but  by  the 
indwelling  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  conflicting  elements  are 
not  sense  and  reason,  the  aninia  and  animus;  but  the  flesh 
and  spirit,  the  human  and  divine,  what  we  derive  from  Adam 
and  what  we  obtain  through  Christ.  "  That  which  is  born 
of  the  flesh  is  flesh;  that  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit." 
John  iii.  6. 

The  sense  in  which  Paul  says  he  was  carnal,  is  explained  by 
saying  he  was  sold  under  sifi,  i.  e.  sold  so  as  to  be  under  the 
power  of  sin.  This,  of  course,  is  an  ambiguous  expression. 
To  say  that  a  'man  is  sold  unto  sin'  may  mean,  as  in  1  Kings 
xxi.  20,  and  2  Kings  xvii.  17,  that  he  is  given  up  to  its  service. 
Sin  is  that  which  he  has  deliberately  chosen  for  a  master,  and 
to  which  he  is  devoted.  In  this  sense  of  the  phrase  it  is 
equivalent  to  what  is  said  of  the  unrenewed  in  the  preceding 
chapter,  that  they  are  the  douXoc  rrjt;  Si/xapTca(;,  the  slaves  of  sin. 
From  this  kind  of  bondage  believers  are  redeemed,  vi.  22. 
But  there  is  another  kind  of  bondage.  A  man  may  be 
subject  to  a  power  which,  of  himself,  he  cannot  effectually 
resist ;  against  which  he  may  and  does  struggle,  and  from  which 
he  earnestly  desires  to  be  free ;  but  which,  notwithstanding  all 
his  eff'orts,  still  asserts  its  authority.  This  is  precisely  the 
bondage  to  sin  of  which  every  believer  is  conscious.  He 
feels  that  there  is  a  law  in  his  members  bringing  him  into 
subjection  to  the  law  of  sin;  that  his  distrust  of  God,  his  hard- 
ness of  heart,  his  love  of  the  world  and  of  self,  his  pride,  in 
short  his  indwelling  sin,  is  a  real  power  from  which  he  longs 


ROMANS  VII.  15.  361 

to  be  free,  against  which  he  struggles,  but  from  which  he 
cannot  emancipate  himself.  This  is  the  kind  of  bondage  of 
which  the  apostle  here  speaks,  as  is  plain  from  the  following 
verses,  as  well  as  from  the  whole  context  and  from  the  analogy 
of  Scripture. 

Verse  15.  For  that  which  I  do,  I  allow  not,  &c.  This  is 
an  explanation  and  confirmation  of  the  preceding  declaration. 
'I  am  sold  under  sin,  for  that  which  I  do,  I  allow  not,  &c.' 
The  word  jcvioaxu)  rendered  I  allow,  properly  signifies,  /  know^ 
and  as  it  is  used  in  different  senses  in  the  Scriptures,  its  mean- 
ing in  this  case  is  a  matter  of  doubt.  Retaining  its  ordinary 
sense,  the  word  may  be  used  here  as  in  the  common  phrase,  '  I 
know  not  what  I  do,'  expressive  of  the  absence  of  a  calm  and 
deliberate  purpose,  and  of  the  violence  of  the  impulse  under 
which  one  acts.  Inscius  et  invitus  facio,  quae  facio.  Or  the 
meaning  may  be,  that  what  is  done,  is  done  thoughtlessly.  Non 
cum  pleno  mentis  proposito.  Morus.  This  view  is  a  very  com- 
mon one,  expressed  in  difi"erent  forms.  "  The  sinful  decision 
occurs  not  by  rational  self-determination,  and,  therefore,  not 
with  the  full  consciousness  with  which  we  should  act."  De 
Wette.  To  the  same  eifect  Meyer,  '  the  act  occurs  without  the 
consciousness  of  its  moral  character,  in  a  state  of  bondage  of 
the  practical  reason,  as  a  slave  acts  without  a  consciousness  of 
the  nature  or  design  of  what  he  does.'  Or,  'I  do  not  do  it 
knowingly,  because  I  know  it  to  be  right.'  This  comes  very 
near  the  old  interpretation  according  to  which,  to  know  means 
to  approve.  See  Ps.  i.  6,  "  The  Lord  knoweth  the  ways  of  the 
righteous."  With  regard  to  moral  objects,  knowledge  is  not 
mere  cognition.  It  is  the  apprehension  of  the  moral  quality, 
and  involves  of  necessity  approbation  or  disapprobation.  Hence 
the  pious  are  described  in  Scripture  as  those  "who  know  God," 
or  "the  knowers  of  his  name."  Ps.  ix.  10,  xxxvi.  10,  Hosea 
viii.  2.  What  the  apostle,  therefore,  here  says,  is,  '  what  I«  per- 
form, i.  e.,  what  I  actually  carry  out  into  action,  {xavepydC^ofiae,) 
I  approve  not,  i.  e.,  I  do  not  recognize  as  right  and  good.' 

For  what  I  would,  that  do  I  not ;  but  what  I  hate,  that  do  I. 
This  is  a  further  description  of  this  state  of  bondage.  As  the 
expressions  what  I  would,  and  what  I  hate,  are  in  antithesis, 
the  former  must  mean  what  I  love  or  delight  in.     This  use  of 


362  ROMANS  VII.  15. 

the  Greek  work  {&sX(o)  is  accommodated  to  the  corresponding 
Hebrew  term,  and  occurs  several  times  in  the  New  Testament. 
Matt,  xxvii.  43,  "Let  him  deliver  him,  if  he  will  have  him 
(er  ^sXet  aurop),  i.  e.  if  he  delight  in  him;"  Matt.  ix.  13, 
xii.  7,  Heb.  x.  5,  8,  and  Pa.  xxi.  9,  xxxix.  7,  in  the  Septua- 
gint.  The  word  will,  therefore,  does  not  express  so  much  a 
mere  determination  of  the  mind,  as  a  state  of  the  feelings  and 
judgment.  'What  I  love  and  approve,  that  I  omit;  what  I 
hate  and  disapprove,  that  I  do.'  This  may  not  be  philosophi- 
cal, though  it  is  perfectly  correct  language.  It  is  the  language 
of  common  life,  which,  as  it  proceeds  from  the  common  con- 
sciousness of  men,  is  often  a  better  indication  of  what  that 
consciousness  teaches,  than  the  language  of  the  schools.  Philo- 
sophers themselves,  however,  at  times  speak  in  the  same  simple 
language  of  nature.  Epictetus,  Enchirid.  1.  ii.  c.  26,  has  a 
form  of  expression  almost  identical  with  that  of  the  apostle ; 
6  S-fxaprducov — o  fxhv  &iXec,  ob  Ttoisl,  xal  8  fiyj  -^eXet  Tiocel.  The 
language  of  the  apostle,  in  this  passage,  expresses  a  fact  of 
consciousness,  with  which  every  Christian  is  familiar.  Whether 
the  conflict  here  described  is  that  which,  in  a  greater  or  less 
degree,  exists  in  every  man,  between  the  natural  authoritative 
sense  of  right  and  wrong,  and  his  corrupt  inclinations;  or 
whether  it  is  peculiar  to  the  Christian,  must  be  decided  by 
considerations  drawn  from  the  whole  description,  and  from  the 
connection  of  this  passage  with  the  preceding  and  succeeding 
portions  of  the  apostle's  discourse.  It  is  enough  to  remark 
here,  that  every  Christian  can  adopt  the  language  of  this  verse. 
Pride,  coldness,  slothfulness,  and  other  feelings  which  he  dis- 
approves and  hates,  are,  day  by  day,  reasserting  their  power 
over  him.  He  struggles  against  their  influence,  groans  beneath 
their  bondage,  longs  to  be  filled  with  meekness,  humility,  and 
all  other  fruits  of  the  love  of  God,  but  finds  he  can  neither  of 
himself,  nor  by  the  aid  of  the  law,  eflFect  his  freedom  from  what 
he  hates,  or  the  full  performance  of  what  he  desires  and  ap- 
proves. Every  evening  witnesses  his  penitent  confession  of  his 
degrading  bondage,  his  sense  of  utter  helplessness,  and  his 
longing  desire  for  aid  from  above.  He  is  a  slave  looking  and 
longing  for  liberty. 

Two  consequences  flow  from  this  representation  of  the  experi- 


ROMANS  VII.  16,  IT.  363 

ence  of  the  Christian.  First,  the  fault  is  felt  and  acknowledged 
to  be  his  own ;  the  law  is  not  to  be  blamed,  ver.  16.  Second,  this 
state  of  feeling  is  consistent  with  his  being  a  Christian,  ver.  17. 

Verse  16.  If  then  I  do  that  which  I  would  not,  I  consent 
unto  the  law  that  it  is  good.  Paul  here  asserts  that  his  acting 
contrary  to  the  law  was  no  evidence  that  he  thought  the  law 
evil ;  for  what  he  did,  he  disapproved.  But  to  disapprove  and 
condemn  what  the  law  forbids,  is  to  assent  to  the  excellence  of 
the  law.  There  is  a  constant  feeling  of  self-disapprobation, 
and  a  sense  of  the  excellence  of  the  law,  in  the  Christian's 
mind.  He  is,  therefore,  never  disposed  to  blame  the  extent  or 
severity  of  the  law,  but  admits  the  fault  to  be  in  himself.  I 
consent  to,  auynprnu,  I  speak  with,  I  say  the  same  thing  which 
the  law  says,  when  it  pronounces  itself  good.  There  is  no 
conflict  between  the  law  and  the  believer;  it  is  between  the 
law  and  what  the  believer  himself  condemns. 

Verse  17.  Now  then  it  is  no  more  I  that  do  it,  hut  sin  that 
dwelleth  in  me.  Now  then,  vuvl  ds,  that  is,  under  these  cir- 
cumstances, or,  this  being  the  case.  Or  the  meaning  may  be 
but  now,  i.  e.  since  I  became  a  Christian.  The  former  ex- 
planation is  to  be  preferred  on  account  of  the  connetion  of  this 
verse  with  ver.  15,  from  which  this  passage  is  an  inference. 
'If  the  case  be  so,  that  I  am  sold  under  sin  and  am  its 
unwilling  slave ;  if  I  do  what  I  disapprove,  and  fail  to  accom- 
plish what  I  love ;  it  is  clear  that  it  is  not  properly  and  fully  I 
that  do  it,  my  real  self;  my  better  feelings  or  renovated  nature 
is  opposed  to  what  the  law  forbids.'  Ego  quidem  in  utroque, 
sed  magis  ego  in  eo,  quod  approbabam,  quam  in  eo  quod  in  me 
improbabam.  Augustine,  Confess.  Lib.  viii.  ch.  5.  This  *  is 
not  said  as  an  exculpation,  but  to  exhibit  the  extent  and  power 
of  indwelling  sin,  which  it  is  beyond  our  own  power,  and 
beyond  the  power  of  the  law,  to  eradicate  or  effectually  control. 
This  feeling  of  helplessness  is  not  only  consistent  with  a 
sense  and  acknowledgment  of  accountability,  but  is  always 
found  united  with  genuine  self-condemnation  and  penitence. 
There  are,  in  general,  few  stronger  indications  of  ignorance  of 
the  power  and  evil  of  sin,  than  the  confident  assertion  of  our 
ability  to  resist  and  subdue  it.  Paul  groaned  beneath  its 
bondage,  as  if  held  in  the  loathsome  embrace  of  a  "  body  of 


$H  ROMANS  VII.  18—20. 

death."  The  apostle's  object,  therefore,  is  not  to  apologize  for 
sin,  but  to  show  that  the  experience  detailed  in  ver.  15,  is  con- 
sistent with  his  being  a  Christian.  '  If  it  is  true  that  I  really 
approve  and  love  the  law,  and  desire  to  be  conformed  to  it,  I 
am  no  longer  the  willing  slave  of  sin;  to  the  depth  and  power 
of  the  original  evil  is  to  be  attributed  the  fact  that  I  am  not 
entirely  delivered  from  its  influence,'  This  is  obviously  con- 
nected with  the  main  object  of  the  whole  passage.  For  if  sin 
remains  and  exerts  its  power,  notwithstanding  our  disappro- 
bation, and  in  despite  of  all  our  eflForts,  it  is  clear  that  we 
must  look  for  deliverance  to  something  out  of  ourselves,  and 
that  the  mere  preceptive  power  of  the  law  cannot  remove 
the  evil. 

Verses  18,  19,  20.  These  verses  contain  an  amplification 
and  confirmation  of  the  sentiment  of  the  preceding  verses. 
They  re-assert  the  existence,  and  explain  the  nature  of  the 
inward  struggle  of  which  the  apostle  had  been  speaking.  'I 
am  unable  to  come  up  to  the  requirements  of  the  law,  not 
because  they  are  unreasonable,  but  because  I  am  corrupt; 
there  is  no  good  in  me.  I  can  approve  and  delight  in  the 
exhibitions  of  holiness  made  by  the  law,  but  full  conformity  to 
its  demands  is  more  than  I  can  attain.  It  is  not  I,  therefore, 
my  real  and  lasting  self,  but  this  intrusive  tyrant  dwelling 
within  me,  that  disobeys  the  law.'  This  strong  and  expressive 
language,  though  susceptible  of  a  literal  interpretation,  which 
would  make  it  teach  not  only  error  but  nonsense,  is  still  per- 
fectly perspicuous  and  correct,  because  accurately  descriptive 
of  the  common  feelings  of  men.  Paul  frequently  employs 
similar  modes  of  expression.  When  speaking  of  his  apostolic 
labours,  he  says,  "  Yet  not  I,  but  the  grace  of  God,  which  was 
with  me,"  1  Cor.  xv.  10.  And  in  Gal.  ii.  20,  he  says,  "I  live, 
yet  not  I,  but  Christ  liveth  in  me."  As  no  one  supposes 
that  the  labours  and  life  here  spoken  of  were  not  the  labours 
and  life  of  the  apostle,  or  that  they  did  not  constitute  and 
express  his  moral  character ;  so  no  Christian  supposes  that  the 
greatness  and  power  of  his  sin  frees  him  from  its  responsibility, 
even  when  he  expresses  his  helpless  misery  by  saying,  with  the 
apostle,  "It  is  not  I,  but  sin  that  dwelleth  in  me."  This 
doctrine  of  sin  as  indwelling  is  irreconcilable  with  the  assump- 


ROMANS  VII.  18.  365 

tion  that  sin  consists  exclusively  in  acts  of  the  "will,  or  even  in 
the  widest  sense  of  the  terms,  in  voluntary  action.  An  in- 
dwelling act  is  a  solecism.  Sin,  in  this,  as  in  so  many  other 
places  of  Scripture,  is  presented  as  an  abiding  state  of  the 
mind,  a  disposition  or  principle,  manifesting  itself  in  acts.  It 
is  this  that  gives  sin  its  power.  We  have  measurably  power 
over  our  acts,  but  over  our  immanent  principles  we  have  no 
direct  control.  They  master  us  and  not  we  them.  Herein 
consists  our  bondage  to  sin.  And  as  the  power  of  an  in- 
dwelling principle  is  increased  by  exercise,  so  the  strength  of 
sin  is  increased  by  every  voluntary  evil  act.  No  act  is  iso- 
lated. "Nothing,"  says  Olshausen,  "is  more  dangerous  than 
the  erroneous  opinion  that  an  evil  act  can  stand  alone,  or  that 
a  man  can  commit  one  sin  and  then  stop.  All  evil  is  con- 
catenated, and  every  sin  increases  the  power  of  the  indwelling 
corruption  in  a  fearful  progression,  until,  sooner  than  the 
sinner  dreams  of,  his  head  swims,  and  he  is  plunged  into  the 
abyss." 

Verse  18.  For  I  know  that  in  me,  that  is,  in  my  flesh, 
there  dwelleth  no  good  thing,  &c.  The  f"-P  refers  to  the  pre- 
ceding clause,  "sin  dwelleth  in  me,"  which  what  follows  con- 
firms. '  Sin  dwells  in  me,  for  in  my  flesh  there  dwelleth  no 
good  thing;'  literally,  good  does  not  dwell.  Paul  is  here 
explaining  how  it  is  that  there  is  such  a  contradiction  between 
his  better  principles  and  his  conduct,  as  just  described.  The 
reason  is,  that  in  himself,  he  was  entirely  depraved,  "In  me, 
that  is,  in  my  flesh,  there  dwelleth  no  good  thing."  As  Paul 
is  here  speaking  of  himself,  he  limits  the  declaration  that  there 
was  no  good  in  him.  In  its  full  sense,  as  he  was  a  renewed 
man,  this  could  not  be  true;  he  therefore  adds,  "in  my  flesh." 
Agreeably  to  the  explanation  given  above,  ver.  14,  these  words 
evidently  mean,  'in  my  nature  considered  apart  from  Divine 
influence,'  i.  e.  'in  me  viewed  independently  of  the  effects  pro- 
duced by  the  Spirit  of  God.'  This  is  Paul's  common  use  of  the 
yjox^  flesh.  As  he  ascribes  all  excellence  in  man  to  the  Holy 
Spirit,  in  men,  when  destitute  of  that  Spirit,  there  is  "  no  good 
thing."  To  be  "  in  the  flesh,"  is  to  be  unrenewed,  and  under 
the  government  of  our  own  depraved  nature;  to  be  "in  the 
Spirit,"    is   to   be  under  the   guidance   of  the    Holy  Ghost; 


366  ROMANS  VII.  19. 

ch.  Aaii.  8,  9.  So  too,  in  Scripture  language,  a  natural  man  is 
a  depraved  man ;  and  a  spiritual  man  is  one  that  is  renewed ; 
1  Cor.  ii.  14,  15.  It  need  hardly  be  remarked  that  in  the 
jiesh  cannot  here  mean  in  the  body.  Paul  does  not  mean  to 
say  that  in  his  body  there  was  no  good  thing,  as  though  the 
body  were  the  seat  of  sin  in  man,  and  that  exclusively.  He 
frequently  uses  the  phrase  works  of  the  flesh,  in  reference  to 
sins  which  have  no  connection  with  the  body,  as  envy,  pride, 
seditions,  heresies,  &c.,  Gal.  v.  19,  20. 

For  to  will  is  present  ivith  me,  hut  to  perform  that  which 
is  good,  I  find  not.  This  again  is  connected  by  yap  with  what 
precedes.  '  Good  does  not  dwell  in  me,  for  though  I  have  the 
will  to  do  right,  I  have  not  the  performance.'  To  d-iXetv 
TvapdxscTai  fioc,  not  ivill  as  a  faculty,  but  (ro  d-iXzcu)  as  an  act. 
The  purpose  or  desire  is  present,  i.  e.  /  have  it;  hut  the  per- 
formance of  the  good  I  find  not;  ob^  ebp'taxoi  is  equivalent  to 
ob  TiapdxeiTai  is  not  present.  I  have  the  one  but  not  the  other. 
Instead  of  the  common  text  as  given  above,  Griesbach  and 
Lachmann,  on  the  authority  of  the  Alexandrian  manuscript, 
read  simply  ob,  omitting  euptaxco,,  (I  find.)  The  sense  is  the 
same,  for  in  that  case  napdxetrac  must  be  understood.  'The 
one  is  present,  the  other  is  not  (present).'  The  common 
reading  is  generally  preferred,  as  the  omission  is  easily  ac- 
counted for. 

Verse  19.  For  the  good  that  I  would,  I  do  not;  hut  the 
evil  that  I  would  not,  that  I  do.  A  confirmation  of  what  goes 
before.  '  I  do  not  find  good  present  with  me,  for  the  good  I 
would  I  do  not.'  This  is  a  repetition,  nearly  in  the  same 
words,  of  what  is  said  in  ver.  15.  Paul  reasserts  that  he  was 
unable  to  act  up  to  his  purposes  and  desires.  For  example,  he 
doubtless  desired  to  love  God  with  all  his  heart,  and  at  all 
times,  but  constantly  was  his  love  colder,  and  less  operative 
than  the  law  demands.  This  verse  is,  therefore,  but  an  ampli- 
fication of  the  last  clause  of  ver,  18.  /  would  {p-eXo),)  means 
either  /  approve  or  love,  as  in  ver.  15 ;  or,  I  purpose,  as  in 
ver.  18.     The  numerous  passages*  quoted  by  commentators  in 

*  The  following  are  a  few  examples  of  this  kind  selected  from  the  multitude 
collected  by  Grotius  and  Wetstein. 
Quid  est  hoc,  Lucili,  quod  nos  alio  tendentes  alio  trabit,  et  eo,  unde  recedere 


ROMANS  VII.  20.  367 

illustration  of  this  and  the  preceding  verses,  though  they  may 
serve  to  throw  light  upon  the  language,  are  expressive  of 
feelings  very  different  from  those  of  the  apostle.  When  an 
impenitent  man  says  'he  is  sorry  for  his  sins,'  he  may  express 
the  real  state  of  his  feelings ;  and  yet  the  import  of  this 
language  is  very  different  from  what  it  is  in  the  mouth  of  a  man 
truly  contrite.  The  word  sorrow  expresses  a  multitude  of  very 
different  feelings.  Thus,  also,  when  wicked  men  say  they 
approve  the  good  while  they  pursue  the  wrong,  their  appro- 
bation is  something  very  different  from  Paul's  approbation 
of  the  law  of  God.  And  when  Seneca  calls  the  gods  to 
witness,  'that  what  he  wills,  he  does  not  will,'  he  too  expresses 
something  far  short  of  what  the  language  of  the  apostle  con- 
veys. This  must  be  so,  if  there  is  any  such  thing  as  experi- 
mental or  evangelical  religion;  that  is,  if  there  is  any  dif- 
ference between  the  sorrow  for  sin  and  desire  of  good  in 
the  mind  of  a  true  Christian,  and  in  the  unrenewed  and 
willing  votaries  of  sin  in  whom  conscience  is  not  entirely 
obliterated. 

Verse  20.  Now  if  I  do  that  I  would  not,  it  is  no  more  I 
that  do  it,  hut  sin  that  dwelleth  in  me.  The  same  conclusion 
from  the  same  premises  as  in  ver.  17.  '  The  things  which  I  do, 
when  contrary  to  the  characteristic  desires  and  purposes  of  my 
heart,  are  to  be  considered  as  the  acts  of  a  slave.  They  are 
indeed  my  own  acts,  but  not  being  performed  with  the  full  and 
joyful  purpose  of  the  heart,  are  not  to  be  regarded  as  a  fair 
criterion  of  character.' 

cupimus,  repellit?  Quid  colluctatur  cum  animo  nostro,  nee  permittit  nobis 
quidquam  semel  velle  ?  Fluctuamus  inter  varia  consilia,  nihil  libere  volumus, 
nihil  absolute,  nihil  semper. — Seneca,  Ep.  25. 

Sed  trahit  invitam  nova  vis,  aliudque  cupido,  mens  aliud  suadet.  Video 
meliora  proboque,  deteriora  sequor. — Ovid,  Metam.  vii.  19. 

Vos  testor,  omnes  coelites,  hoc  quod  volo,  me  nolle. — Seneca,  Hippol.  v.  604. 

'Etti)  ya^  0  afAA^TWim  oil  ^i\u  a/xdi^TdviiY,  uKKa  kuto^Q^Ztou,  HIkcy  OTl,  i  /uh  5'eKU,  ou 
TTmii,  Kx)  0  /All  Sihft,  TTUii. — ArHan' s  Epict.  ii.  26.  "Since  the  sinner  does  not 
wish  to  err,  but  to  act  correctly,  it  is  plain  that  ■what  he  wills  he  does  not,  and 
what  he  wills  not  he  does." 

MavS'ava)  /Ah,  o'la.  i(Zi  /^iKktt  KAna, 

Qu/xk  ii  Kgiiira-aiv  rZv  i/jtZv  &ouKW[jLaTm ■ — Euripides,  Medea,  v.  1077. 

"I  know  indeed  that  what  I  am  about  to  do  is  evil; 

But  passion  is  too  strong  for  my  purposes." 


368  ROMANS  VII.  21. 

Verse  21.  I  find  then  a  law,  that  v>hen  I  would  do  good,  evil 
is  present  with  me.  This  verse  has  been  subjected  to  a  greater 
variety  of  interpretations  than  any  other  in  the  chapter,  or 
perhaps  in  the  whole  epistle.  The  construction  in  the  original 
is  doubtful ;  and  besides  this  difficulty,  there  is  no  little  uncer- 
tainty as  to  the  sense  in  which  the  word  law  is  to  be  here 
taken.  The  question  is,  whether  Paul  means  the  law  of  God, 
of  which  he  has  been  speaking  throughout  the  chapter,  or 
whether  he  uses  the  word  in  a  new  sense,  for  a  rule,  course,  or 
law  of  action.  Our  translators  have  assumed  the  latter.  If 
the  former  sense  of  the  word  be  preferred,  the  passage  may  be 
thus  interpreted.  '  I  find,  therefore,  that  to  me  wishing  to  do 
good,  evil  (the  law  as  the  cause  of  evil)  is  present  with  me.* 
See  Koppe.  This  is  very  unnatural.  Or  thus,  '  I  find,  there- 
fore, that  to  me  wishing  to  act  according  to  the  law,  i.  e.  to  do 
good,  evil  is  present  with  me.'*  Or,  as  Tholuck  explains  it,  'I 
find,  therefore,  that  while  I  would  do  the  law,  (i.  e.  good),  evil  is 
present.'  Then  rbv  vofiov  depends  on  xoieiv,  (willing  to  do  the 
law)  and  to  xaXov  is  in  apposition  with  xbv  v6iiov.  The  law  is 
the  good  which  the  apostle  desired  to  do.  But  in  the  context, 
the  phrase  Tiotzlv  rbv  vo/uou  does  not  occur,  and  the  passage  as 
thus  explained  is  awkward  and  unnatural.  Besides  to  xaXov 
would  be  entirely  superfluous  as  tou  vofjiov  needs  no  explana- 
tion. The  considerations  in  favour  of  the  second  explanation 
of  the  word  law  appear  to  be  decisive.  1.  The  other  interpre- 
tation does  not  afford  a  sense  suited  to  the  context,  as  appears 
from  Paul's  own  explanation  of  his  meaning  in  the  following 
verses.  'I  find,'  he  says,  'this  law,  that  while  wishing  to  do 
good,  I  do  evil,'  ver.  21;  that  is,  'I  find  that  while  I  delight  in 
the  law  of  God,  after  the  inward  man,  there  is  another  law  in 
my  members  which  causes  me  to  sin.'  vs.  22,  23.  Here  it  is 
evident,  that  the  apostle  means  to  explain  what  he  intended  by 
saying  in  ver.  21,  that  he  found  or  experienced  a  law  which 
caused  him  to  act  contrary  to  his  better  judgment  and  desires. 
2.  Having  used  the  word  law  by  itself  for  the  Divine  law 
throughout  the  chapter,  he,  for  the  first  time,  in  ver.  22,  calls 

*  Enapp's  Proluaio  in  locum,  Rom.  vii.  21,  in  his  Scripta  Varii  Argument!. 
The  several  interpretations  of  the  passage  are  given  and  discussed  by  that 
writer. 


ROMANS  VII.  22.  369 

it  "  the  law  of  God,"  to  mark  the  distinction  between  the  law 
intended  in  ver.  21,  and  that  intended  in  ver.  22.  3.  This 
sense  of  the  word  is  not  unusual ;  it  occurs  repeatedly  in  the 
immediately  succeeding  verses. 

But  admitting  that  vbjxoz  is  taken  here  in  the  sense  of  con- 
trolling principle  or  inward  necessity,  the  construction  of  the 
passage  is  still  doubtful.  Tw  ^klovxc  Ifxol  may  depend  on 
tbpiaxio^  I  find  in  me.  The  construction  is  then  regular :  '  I 
find  in  myself  willing  to  do  good  the  law,  that  evil  is  pre- 
sent with  me,'  so  Meyer;  or,  as  Winer  (§  65,  4.)  proposes, 
"  Invenio  banc  legem  (noi:mam)  volenti  mihi  honestum  facere, 
ut  mihi,"  &c.  And  Beza:  "  Comperio  igitur  volenti  mihi 
facere  bonum  banc  legem  esse  impositum,  quod  mihi  malum 
adjaceat."  Most  commentators,  however,  assume  a  trajection 
of  the  particle  ore,  placing  it  before  the  first,  instead  of  the 
second  clause  of  the  verse :  '  I  find  this  law,  that  (pzi)  to  me 
willing  to  do  good,  evil  is  present  with  me;'  instead  of,  'I  find 
this  law  to  me  willing  to  do  good,  that  [ore)  evil  is  present.* 
The  English  version  assumes  this  trajection.  The  sense  is  the 
same ;  and  if  it  can  be  elicited  without  altering  the  position  of 
the  words,  no  such  alteration  should  be  made.  Paul's  experi- 
ence had  taught  him,  that  while  wishing  to  do  good,  he  was 
still  subject  to  evil,  and  from  this  subjection  nothing  but  the 
grace  of  God  could  deliver  him.  This  experience  is  common  to 
all  believers.  "Fideles,"  says  Calvin,  "dum  ad  bonum  nitun- 
tur,  quandam  in  se  tyrannicam  legem  reperire,  quia  eorum 
medullis  et  ossibus  infixa  est  vitiositas  legi  Dei  adversa  et 
repugnans." 

Verse  22.  For  I  delight  in  the  law  of  G-od  after  the  inward 
man.  This  is  both  an  explanation  and  confirmation  of  what 
precedes.  The  inward  conflict  referred  to  in  ver.  21,  is  here 
stated  more  fully.  Paul  had  said  that  although  he  purposed 
to  do  good  evil  was  present  with  him :  'jPor  I  delight  in  the 
law  of  God  after  the  inner  man ;  but  I  find  a  law  in  my  mem- 
bers bringing  me  into  captivity  to  the  law  of  sin.'  /  delight  in 
the  law,  ai)vijdo}xae  ydp  x(jj  vofiw,  I  rejoice  with;  not  however 
with  others,  to  whom  the  context  suggests  and  allows  no  refer- 
ence, but  intus,  ajjud  animum  meum.  As  we  say,  to  rejoice 
with  the  whole  heart.  Compare  auvotda,  I  am  conscious,  \.  e.,  I 
24 


370  ROMANS  VII.  22. 

know  with  myself.  As  the  apostle  recognised  in  the  new  man 
two  conflicting  principles,  he  speaks  as  though  there  were 
within  him  two  persons,  both  represented  by  /.  The  one  is  I, 
i.  e.  my  flesh ;  the  other  is  I,  i.  e.  my  inner  man.  By  the  inner 
maw  is  to  be  understood  the  "new  man;"  either  the  renewed 
principle  in  itself  considered,  or  the  soul  considered  or  viewed 
as  renewed.  That  this  is  the  true  meaning  of  the  phrase  is 
evident:  1.  From  its  origin.  It  is  a  term  descriptive  of  excel- 
lence. As  the  soul  is  better  than  the  body,  so  the  inner  man 
is  better  than  the  outward  man.  When  the  contrast  is  simply 
between  the  external  and  internal,  then  the  inner  man  means 
the  soul;  but  when  the  contrast  is,  as  here,  between  two  con- 
flicting principles  within  the  soul,  then  by  the  inward  man  must 
be  meant  the  higher  or  better  principle  within  us.  That  this 
higher  principle  is  not  any  natural  faculty,  anything  belonging 
to  us  in  our  unrenewed  state,  is  plain  from  what  is  predicated 
of  this  inner  man.  Everything  is  said  of  it  that  can  be  said 
of  what  is  characteristic  of  the  true  children  of  God.  2.  This 
interpretation  is  confirmed  by  a  comparison  with  those  passages 
where  the  same  phrase  occurs.  In  2  Cor.  iv.  16,  and  Eph. 
iii.  16,  by  "inward  man"  is  meant  the  soul  as  renewed.  It  is 
equivalent  to  the  inner,  or  divine  life,  which  is  daily  renewed 
or  strengthened  by  the  communications  of  the  Spirit.  3.  The 
analogous  phrases,  "the  new  man,"  as  opposed  to  the  "old 
man,"  Rom.  vi.  6,  Eph.  iv.  22,  Col.  iii.  9,  and  "hidden  man  of 
the  heart,"  1  Pet.  iii.  14,  serve  to  illustrate  and  confirm  this 
interpretation.  As  "the  new  man"  is  the  soul  as  made  new, 
so  "the  inward  man,"  of  which  the  same  things  are  predicated, 
means  the  renewed  nature,  or  nature  as  renewed.  4.  The  use 
of  the  terms  "inward  man,"  "law  of  the  mind,"  "the  Spirit," 
"the  spiritual  man,"  as  opposed  to  "the  law  in  the  members," 
"the  old  man,"  "the  flesh,"  "the  natural  man,"  shows  that 
the  former  all  indicate  the  soul  as  regenerated,  or  as  the  scat 
of  the  Spirit's  influences,  and  the  latter  the  soul  as  unrenewed. 
5.  The  decision  of  the  question  as  to  what  is  here  meant  by 
the  "inward  man,"  depends  on  what  is  elsewhere  taught  in 
the  Scriptures  concerning  the  natural  state  of  man.  If  men, 
since  the  fall,  are  only  partially  depraved;  if  sin  affects  only 
our    lower    faculties,    leaving    the    reason    undisturbed    in    its 


ROMANS  VII.  23.  3T1 

original  purity,  then  by  the  "inward  man,"  we  must  under- 
stand our  rational,  as  opposed  to  our  sensuous  nature.  But 
if  the  Bible  teaches  that  the  whole  man  is  defiled  by  sin, 
and  that  the  principle  of  spiritual  life  is  something  superna- 
tural, then  it  follows  that  the  conflict  here  depicted  is  not  that 
between  sense  and  reason,  but  that  between  the  new  and  old 
man,  the  soul  as  renewed  and  indwelling  sin.  "  Interior  igitur 
homo,"  says  Calvin,  "non  anima  simpliciter  dicitur,  sed  spiri- 
tualis  ejus  pars,  quae  a  Deo  regenerata  est:  membrorum  voca- 
bulum  residuam  alteram  partem  significat.  Nam  ut  anima  est 
pars  excellentior  hominis,  corpus  inferior;  ita  spiritus  superior 
est  carne.  Hac  ergo  ratione,  quia  Spiritus  locum  animae  tenet 
in  homine,  caro  autem,  id  est  corrupta  et  vitiata  anima,  corpo- 
ris, ille  interioris  hominis,  hgec  membrorum  nomen  obtinet." 
So  also  Melancthon  says,  "Interior  homo  significat  hominem, 
quatenus  renovatus  est  Spiritu  sancto."  And  Luther's  mar- 
ginal note  is,  "  Inwendiger  Mensch  heisst  hier  der  Geist  aus 
Gnaden  geboren,  welcher  in  den  Heiligen  streitet  wider  den 
ausserlichen,  dass  ist,  Vernunft,  Sinn  und  alles  was  Natur  am 
Menschen  ist."  And  this  conflict  between  the  flesh  and  Spirit, 
he  says,  in  his  preface  to  this  epistle,  "  continues  in  us  so  long 
as  we  live,  in  some  more,  and  in  others  less,  according  as  the 
one  or  the  other  principle  is  the  stronger.  Yet  the  whole  man 
is  both  flesh  and  Spirit,  and  contends  with  himself  until  he  is 
completely  spiritual." 

Verse  23.  But  I  see  another  law  in  my  members,  &c.  I  see, 
as  though  looking  into  his  own  soul,  and  observing  the  princi- 
ples there  in  conflict.  Besides  "the  inward  man,"  or  principle 
of  the  divine  life,  there  was  "another  law,"  not  merely  alkov^ 
another  numerically,  but  irepov,  another  in  kind,  one  that  is 
heterogenous,  of  a  diflerent  nature.  This  evil  principle  is  called 
a  law,  because  of  its  permanency  and  its  controlling  power. 
It  is  not  a  transient  act  or  mutable  purpose,  but  a  law,  some- 
thing independent  of  the  will  which  defies  and  controls  it.  In 
my  members,  i.  e.  in  me.  It  is  equivalent  to  "in  my  flesh," 
ver.  18.  Warring  against  the  law  of  mind.  It  is  not  only 
passively  antagonistic,  but  it  is  a  constantly  active  principle, 
warring,  i.  e.  endeavouring  to  overcome  and  destroy  the  laio 
of  my  mind.     '^0  uo/jloi;  tou  vooi;  [xou,  is  not  the  law  of  which 


372  ROMANS  VII.  23. 

my  mind  is  the  author,  but  which  pertains  to  my  higher  nature. 
As  the  one  law  is  in  the  members,  or  flesh,  the  other  is  the 
mind;  vouc,  not  the  reason,  nor  the  aiFections,  but  the  higher 
or  renewed  nature.  It  is  antithetical  to  odp^,  and  as  the  latter 
does  not  mean  the  body,  nor  simply  our  sensuous  nature,  but 
our  nature  considered  as  corrupt,  so  the  former  does  not  mean 
the  soul,  nor  the  reason,  but  our  nature  as  renewed.  "  The  law 
of  the  mind"  is  evidently  only  another  designation  for  "the 
inward  man."  It  was  not  the  apostle's  mind,  his  rational 
nature,  which  strove  against  the  law  in  his  members;  but  it 
was  his  mind  or  rational  nature  as  a  Christian,  and  therefore, 
as  such,  the  dwelling-place  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  is  not  the 
reason  of  the  natural  man,  but  the  illuminated  reason  of  the 
spiritual  man,  of  which  the  apostle  here  speaks.  Bringing  me 
into  captivity  to  the  law  of  sin  which  is  in  my  members.  The 
principle  of  evil  is  not  only  active,  but  it  is  conquering.  It 
takes  the  soul  captive.  So  that  it  is,  in  the  sense  of  ver.  14, 
the  slave  of  sin.  Not  its  willing  servant,  but  its  miserable, 
helpless  victim.  This  does  not  mean  that  sin  always  triumphs 
in  act,  but  simply  that  it  is  a  power  from  which  the  soul  cannot 
free  itself.  It  remains,  and  wars,  in  spite  of  all  that  we  can 
do.  The  law  of  sin  is  only  a  descriptive  designation  of  that 
other  law  mentioned  in  the  preceding  clause.  They  are  not 
two  laws.  The  law  in  the  members,  which  was  against  the  law 
of  the  mind,  is  a  law  of  sin,  i.  e.  it  is  sin  considered  as  a  law, 
or  controlling  power.  It  is  the  same  as  "indwelling  sin," 
jy  oixouaa  kv  ifioc  d/jtapria.  In  my  members,  i.  e.  in  me,  as  what 
is  here  expressed  by  iv  ro?c  f^sXeac  jioo,  is  before  expressed  by 
iv  kfjtoi  It  is  only  a  modification  of  the  old  anti-Augustinian 
interpretation,  when  Olshausen  represents,  according  to  his 
anthropology,  man  as  composed  of  three  parts,  the  Trvsu/ia, 
</'02'j,  and  (Ttofia,  or  voix;,  </'o^y},  and  ffdp^.  The  (/"J^^  he  makes 
the  real  centre  of  our  personality.  By  the  voDc  we  are  in  com- 
munion with  the  spiritual  world,  by  the  (rdp^  with  the  material 
world.  The  (po^ij,  therefore,  is  the  battle-field  of  the  voyc  and 
aap^.  By  itself  the  (/^f^'j  cannot  free  itself  from  the  dominion 
or  power  of  the  ffdp^,  and  therefore  needs  redemption,  the 
effect  of  which  is  to  give  the  higher  principle  of  our  nature  the 
ascendency.     The  conflict  is,  from  first  to  last,  a  natural  one. 


ROMANS  VII.  24.  373 

It  is  only  a  struggle  between  the  good  principle  in  man  which 
has  survived  the  fall,  with  the  disorder  introduced  into  his 
nature  by  the  apostacy. 

Verse  24.    0  wretched  man  that  I  am!  who  shall  deliver  me 
from  the  body  of  this  death  ?     The  burden  of  indwelling  sin 
was  a  load  which  the  apostle  could  neither  cast  off  nor  bear. 
He  could  only  groan  under  its  pressure,  and  long  for  deliver- 
ance by  a  power  greater  than  his.      TakaiTzcopoQ^  (nearly  allied 
to   xaXaTzupLOz^    from  xXdia   and    ndpa,  much  tried,)  wretched^ 
Rev.  iii.  17,  where  it  is  connected  with  ihecud:^,  compare  James 
V.  1,  iv.  9.      Who  shall  deliver  me  ?  this  is  the  expression,  not 
of  despair,   but   of   earnest  desire   of  help  from  without  and 
above  himself.      "Non  quaerit,"  says  Calvin,  "a  quo  sit  liber- 
andus,  quasi  dubitans  ut  increduli,  qui  non  tenent  unicum  esse 
liberatorem :  sed  vox  est  anhelantis  et  prope  fatiscentis,  quia 
non   satis   praesentem    opem  videat."      That    from  which    the 
apostle  desired  to  be  delivered  is  the  body  of  this  death,  r/c  /^e 
poazTfu  ix  Tou  (TcopaTO(;  rou  ^avdzou  toutou.     The  demonstra- 
tive rourou  may   be   referred   either   to  OMpaxoz,  this  body  of 
death,  or  to  d^avdrou,  body  of  this  death.     It  is  not  unusual, 
especially  in  Hebrew,  for  the  demonstrative  and  possessive  pro- 
nouns  to  be   connected  with   the   noun   governed,  when  they 
really  qualify  the  governing  noun;  as  "idols  of  his  silver,"  for 
his  silver  idols;    "mountains  of  my  holiness,"   for    my   holy 
mountains.     If  this   explanation   be   here  adopted,  then   the 
meaning  is,  this  body  which  is  subject  to  death,  i.  e.,  this  mor- 
tal body.     Then  what  the  apostle  longed  for  was  death.     He 
longed  to  have  the  strife  over,  which  he  knew  was  to  last  so 
long  as  he  continued   in  the   body.     But  this  is  inconsistent, 
both  with  what  precedes  and  with  what  follows.     It  was  the 
"law  in  his  members,"  "the  law  of  sin,"  which  pressed  on  him 
as  a  grievous  burden.      And  the  victory  for  which  he  gives 
thanks  is  not  freedom  from  the  body,  but  deliverance  from  sin. 
To  avoid   these  difficulties,  death  may   be  taken  in  the  sense  of 
spiritual  death,  and  therefore  including  the  idea  of  sin.     "  This 
body  of  death,"  would  then  mean,  this  body  which  is  the  seat 
of  death,  in  which  spiritual  death  i.  e.  reigns.     It  is,  however, 
more  natural   to   take  the  words  as   they  stand,  and  connect 
TOUTOU  with  dauuTou,  this  death.     Then  the  body  of  this  death 


374  ROMANS  VII.  25. 

may  mean  the  natural  or  material  body,  which  belongs  or  per- 
tains to  the  death  of  which  he  had  been  speaking.  This  agrees 
nearly  with  the  interpretation  last  mentioned.  This  supposes 
that  the  body  is  the  seat  of  sin — 'who  shall  deliver  me  from 
this  death  which  reigns  in  the  body?'  It  is  not,  however, 
Paul's  doctrine  that  the  body  is  evil,  or  that  it  is  the  seat  or 
source  of  sin.  It  is  the  soul  which  is  depraved,  and  which 
contaminates  the  body,  and  perverts  it  to  unholy  use.  It  is, 
therefore,  better  to  take  a&ixa  (body)  in  a  figurative  sense. 
Sin  is  spoken  of  figuratively  in  the  context  as  a  man,  as  "  the 
old  man,"  as  having  members,  and,  in  vi.  6,  as  a  body,  "the 
body  of  sin."  The  meaning,  therefore,  is,  'Who  will  deliver 
me  from  the  burden  of  this  death?'  or,  'this  deadly  weight.' 
Calvin  explains  it  thus :  "  Corpus  mortis  vocat  massam  peccati 
vel  congeriem,  ex  qua  totus  homo  conflatus  est."  The  body 
under  which  the  apostle  groaned  was  mortifera  peccati  massa. 
This  exclamation  is  evidently  from  a  burdened  heart.  It  is 
spoken  out  of  the  writer's  own  consciousness,  and  shows  that 
although  the  apostle  represents  a  class,  he  himself  belonged  to 
that  class.  It  is  his  own  experience  as  a  Christian  to  which 
he  gives  utterance. 

Verse  25.  The  burden  of  sin  being  the  great  evil  under 
which  the  apostle  and  all  other  believers  labour,  from  which  no 
efficacy  of  the  law,  and  no  efforts  of  their  own  can  deliver 
them,  their  case  would  be  entirely  hopeless  but  for  help  from 
on  high.  "  Sin  shall  not  have  dominion  over  you,"  is  the  lan- 
guage of  the  grace  of  God  in  the  gospel.  The  conflict  which 
the  believer  sustains  is  not  to  result  in  the  victory  of  sin,  but 
in  the  triumph  of  grace.  In  view  of  this  certain  and  glorious 
result,  Paul  exclaims,  /  thank  Grod  through  Jesus  Christ  our 
Lord.  This  is  evidently  the  expression  of  a  strong  and  sudden 
emotion  of  gratitude.  As,  however,  his  object  is  to  illustrate 
the  operation  of  the  law,  it  would  be  foreign  to  his  purpose  to 
expatiate  on  a  deliverance  eifected  by  a  diiferent  power;  he, 
therefore,  does  not  follow  up  the  idea  suggested  by  this  excla- 
mation, but  immediately  returns  to  the  point  in  hand.  Instead 
of  the  common  text  mjaotazoi  zCo  j^scw,  /  thank  G-od,  many 
editors  prefer  the  reading  ;f«o^C  ~({^  &tuJ,  thanks  he  to  Crod. 
Some  manuscripts  have  )J  X'^{^^^  ^^J^  d^eoo.      Then  this   verse 


ROMANS  VII.  25.  375 

would  be  an  answer  to  the  preceding.  '  Who  shall  deliver  me 
from  this  burden  of  sin?'  Ans.  'The  grace  of  God.'  For 
this  reading,  however,  there  is  little  authority,  external  or 
internal.  Through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord.  Paul  does  not 
only  render  thanks  to  God  through  the  mediation  of  Christ, 
but  the  great  blessing  of  deliverance  for  which  he  gives  thanks, 
is  received  through  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  He  does  for  us 
what  neither  the  law  nor  our  own  powers  could  effect.  He  is 
the  only  Redeemer  from  sin. 

So  then,  apa  odu,  wherefore.  The  inference  is  not  from  the 
immediately  preceding  expression  of  thanks.  '  Jesus  Christ  is 
my  deliverer,  wherefore  I  myself,'  &;c.  But  this  is  an  unnatural 
combination.  The  main  idea  of  the  whole  passage,  the  subject 
which  the  apostle  laboured  to  have  understood,  is  the  impo- 
tence of  the  law — the  impossibility  of  obtaining  deliverance 
from  sin  through  its  influence  or  agency.  The  inference  is, 
therefore,  from  the  whole  preceding  discussion,  especially  from 
what  is  said  from  ver.  14  onward.  The  conclusion  to  which 
the  apostle  had  arrived  is  here  briefly  summed  up.  He 
remained,  and  so  far  as  the  law  is  concerned,  must  remain 
under  the  power  of  sin.  '  With  the  mind  I  serve  the  law  of 
God,  but  with  the  flesh  the  law  of  sin.'  Deliverance  from  the 
power  of  sin  the  law  cannot  accomplish.  /  myself,  auzo^  iyco. 
The  auzoi;  here  is  either  antithetical,  placing  the  iyo)  in  oppo- 
sition to  some  expressed  or  implied,  or  it  is  explanatory. 
If  the  former,  the  opposition  is  to  did  Ir^aou  Xptarob,  I  alone, 
without  the  aid  of  Christ.  So  Mayer  and  others.  But  the 
idea  thus  expressed  is  not  in  accordance  with  the  context. 
Paul  had  not  been  teaching  what  his  unrenewed,  unaided 
nature  could  accomplish,  but  what  was  the  operation  of  the 
law,  even  on  the  renewed  man.  The  auroc  is  simply  explana- 
tory, I  mi/self,  and  no  other,  i.  e.  the  same  Ugo  of  which  he 
had  spoken  all  along.  It  is  very  plain,  from  the  use  of  this 
expression,  that  the  preceding  paragraph  is  an  exhibition  of 
his  own  experience.  All  that  is  there  said,  is  summarily  here 
said  emphatically  in  his  own  person.  '  I  myself,  I,  Paul,  with 
my  mind  serve  the  law  of  God,  but  with  the  flesh  the  law  of 
sin.'  The  antithesis  is  between  vot  and  ffapxc;  the  one  explains 
the  other.     As  adp^  is  not  the  body,  nor  the  sensuous  nature, 


376  ROMANS  VII.  14—25. 

but  indwelling  sin,  ver.  18,  so  vouc  is  not  the  mind  as  opposed 
to  the  body,  nor  reason  as  opposed  to  the  sensual  passions,  but 
the  higher,  renewed  principle,  as  opposed  to  the  law  in  the 
members,  or  indwelling  corruption.  This  interpretation  is  sus- 
tained by  the  use  of  the  word  in  the  preceding  verses.  Paul 
served  the  law  of  God,  in  so  far  as  he  assented  to  the  law  that 
it  is  good,  as  he  delighted  in  it,  and  strove  to  be  conformed  to 
it.  He  served  the  law  of  sin,  that  is,  sin  considered  as  a  law 
or  inward  power,  so  far  as,  in  despite  of  all  his  efforts,  he  was 
still  under  its  influence,  and  was  thereby  hindered  from  living 
in  that  constant  fellowship  with  God,  and  conformity  to  his 
will,  that  he  earnestly  desired. 

Having  gone  through  the  exposition  of  this  passage,  it  is 
time  to  pause,  and  ask.  Of  whom  has  Paul  been  speaking,  of  a 
renewed  or  unrenewed  man  ?  Few  questions  of  this  kind  have 
been  more  frequently  canvassed,  or  more  intimately  associated 
with  the  doctrinal  views  of  different  classes  of  theologians. 
The  history  of  the  interpretation  of  the  latter  part  of  this 
chapter,  is  one  of  the  most  interesting  sections  of  the  doctrinal 
history  of  the  Church.  A  brief  outline  of  this  history  may  be 
found  in  the  Dissertation  of  Knapp,  before  referred  to,  and 
somewhat  more  extended  in  the  Commentary  of  Tholuck.  It 
appears  that  during  the  first  three  centuries,  the  Fathers  were 
generally  agreed  in  considering  the  passage  as  descriptive  of 
the  experience  of  one  yet  under  the  law.  Even  Augustine  at 
first  concurred  in  the  correctness  of  this  view.  But  as  a  deeper 
insight  into  his  own  heart,  and  a  more  thorough  investigation 
of  the  Scriptures,  led  to  the  modification  of  his  opinions  on  so 
many  other  points,  they  produced  a  change  on  this  subject  also. 
This  general  alteration  of  his  doctrinal  views  cannot  be  attri- 
buted to  his  controversy  with  Pelagius,  because  it  took  place 
long  before  that  controversy  commenced.  It  is  to  be  ascribed 
to  his  religious  experience,  and  his  study  of  the  word  of  God. 

The  writers  of  the  middle  ages,  in  general,  agreed  with  the 
later  views  of  Augustine  on  this,  as  on  other  subjects.  At  the 
time  of  the  Reformation,  the  original  diversity  of  opinion  on 
this  point,  and  on  all  others  connected  with  it,  soon  became 
manifested.     Erasmus,  Socinus,  and  others,  revived  the  opinion 


ROMANS  VII.  14—25.  377 

of  the  Greek  Fathers;  while  Luther,  Calvin,  Melancthon, 
Beza,  &,c.,  adhered  to  the  opposite  interpretation.  At  a  later 
period,  when  the  controversy  with  the  Remonstrants  occurred, 
it  commenced  with  a  discussion  of  the  interpretation  of  this 
chapter.  The  first  writings  of  Arminius,  in  which  he  broached 
his  peculiar  opinions,  were  lectures  on  this  passage.  All  his 
associates  and  successors,  as  Grotius,  Episcopius,  Limborch,  &c., 
adopted  the  same  view  of  the  subject.  As  a  general  rule, 
Arminian  writers  have  been  found  on  one  side  of  this  question, 
and  Calvinistic  authors  on  the  other.  This  is  indeed  the  natural 
result  of  their  different  views  of  the  scriptural  doctrine  of  the 
natural  state  of  man.  Most  of  the  former  class,  going  much 
farther  than  Arminius  himself  ever  went — either  denying  that 
the  corruption  consequent  on  the  fall  is  such  as  to  destroy  the 
power  of  men  to  conform  themselves  to  the  law  of  God,  or 
maintaining  that  this  power,  if  lost,  is  restored  by  those  opera- 
tions of  the  Holy  Spirit  which  are  common  to  all — found  no 
difficulty  in  considering  the  expressions,  "I  consent  to"  and 
"  delight  in  the  law  of  God  after  the  inward  man,"  as  the 
language  of  a  person  yet  in  his  natural  state.  On  the  other 
hand,  those  who  held  the  doctrine  of  total  depravity,  and  of 
the  consequent  inability  of  sinners,  and  who  rejected  the  doc- 
trine of  "common  grace,"  could  not  reconcile  with  these 
opinions  the  strong  language  here  used  by  the  apostle. 

Although  this  has  been  the  general  course  of  opinion  on  this 
subject,  some  of  the  most  evangelical  men,  especially  on  the 
continent  of  Europe,  have  agreed  with  Erasmus  in  his  view 
of  this  passage.  This  -was  the  case  with  Francke,  Bengel,  &c., 
of  a  previous  age;  and  with  Knapp,  Flatt,  Tholuck,  &c.,  of  our 
own  day ;  not  to  mention  the  distinguished  writers  of  England 
and  our  own  country,  who  have  adopted  the  same  view.  There 
is  nothing,  therefore,  in  this  opinion,  which  implies  the  denial 
or  disregard  of  any  of  the  fundamental  principles  of  evangelical 
religion.  Still,  that  the  view  of  the  passage  which  so  long  pre- 
vailed in  the  Church,  and  which  has  been  generally  adopted  by 
evangelical  men,  is  the  correct  one,  seems  evident  from  the  fol- 
lowing considerations. 

I.  The  onus  prohandi  is  certainly  on  the  other  side.  When 
the  apostle  uses  not  only  the  first  person,  but  the  present  tense, 


3T8  ROMANS  VII.  14—25. 

and  says,  "I  consent  to  the  law  that  it  is  good,"  "I  delight  in 
the  law  of  God,"  "I  see  another  law  in  my  members  warring 
against  the  law  of  my  mind,"  &c.,  those  who  deny  that  he 
means  himself,  even  though  he  says  /  myself,  or  refuse  to 
acknowledge  that  this  language  expresses  his  feelings  while 
writing,  are  surely  bound  to  let  the  contrary  very  clearly  be 
seen.  Appearances  are  certainly  against  them.  It  should  be 
remembered  that  Paul  uses  this  language,  not  once  or  twice, 
but  uniformly  through  the  whole  passage,  and  that  too  with  an 
ardour  of  feeling  indicative  of  language  coming  directly  from 
the  heart,  and  expressing  its  most  joyful  or  painful  experience. 
This  is  a  consideration  which  cannot  be  argumentatively  exhi- 
bited, but  it  must  impress  every  attentive  and  susceptible 
reader.  To  suppose  that  the  apostle  is  personating  another, 
either,  as  Grotius*  supposes,  the  Jew  first  before  the  giving  of 
the  law,  and  then  after  it;  or  as  Erasmus  thinks,  a  Gentile 
without  the  law,  as  opposed  to  a  Jew  under  it ;  or  as  is  more 
commonly  supposed,  an  ordinary  individual  under  the  influence 
of  a  knowledge  of  the  law,  is  to  suppose  him  to  do  what  he 
does  nowhere  else  in  any  of  his  writings,  and  what  is  entirely 
foreign  to  his  whole  spirit  and  manner.  Instead  of  thus  sinking 
himself  in  another,  he  can  hardly  prevent  his  own  individual 
feelings  from  mingling  with,  and  moulding  the  very  statement 
of  objections  to  his  own  reasoning;  see  chap.  iii.  3 — 8.  One 
great  difficulty  in  explaining  his  epistles,  arises  from  this  very 
source.  It  is  hard  to  tell  at  times  what  is  his  language,  and 
what  that  of  an  objector.  If  any  one  will  examine  the  passages 
in  which  Paul  is  supposed  to  mean  another,  when  he  uses  the 
first  person,  he  will  see  how  far  short  they  come  of  affording 
any  parallel  to  the  case  supposed  in  this  chapter. f  In  many 
of  them  he  undoubtedly  means  himself,  as  in  1  Cor.  iii.  5, 
iv.  3,  &c.;  in  others  the  language  is,  in  one  sense,  expressive 
y  of  the  apostle's  real  sentiments,  and  is  only  perverted  by  the 
objector,  as  in  1  Cor.  vi.  12 ;  while  in  others  the  personation 
of  another  is  only  for  a  single  sentence.     Nothing  analogous  to 

*  Ego,  id  est,  genus  Israeliticum  cum  vixit  ante  legem — in  Aegypto  scilicet. 
See  his  comment  on  ver.  9. 

t  The  passages  referred  to  by  Knapp  are  1  Cor.  iii.  5,  iv.  3,  &c.;  vi.  12; 
X   29,  30;  xiii.  11,  12;   xiv.  14,  15;  Gal.  ii.  18—21. 


ROMANS  VII.  14—25.  379 

tliis  passage  Is  to  be  found  in  all  his  writings,  if  indeed  he  is 
not  here  pouring  out  the  feelings  of  his  own  heart. 

II.  There  is  no  necessity  for  denying  that  Paul  here  speaks 
of  himself,  and  describes  the  exercises  of  a  renewed  man. 
There  is  not  an  expression,  from  beginning  to  the  end  of  this 
section,  which  the  holiest  man  may  not  and  must  not  adopt. 
This  has  been  shown  in  the  commentary.  The  strongest 
declarations,  as,  for  example,  "I  am  carnal,  and  sold  under 
sin,"  admit,  indeed,  by  themselves,  of  an  interpretation  incon- 
sistent with  even  ordinary  morality;  but,  as  explained  by  the 
apostle,  and  limited  by  the  context,  they  express  nothing  more 
than  every  believer  experiences.  What  Christian  does  not  feel 
that  he  is  carnal  ?  Alas,  how  different  is  he  from  the  spirits 
of  the  just  made  perfect !  How  cheerfully  does  he  recognise 
his  obligation  to  love  God  with  all  the  heart,  and  yet  how  con- 
stantly does  the  tendency  to  self  and  the  world,  the  law  in  his 
members,  war  against  the  purer  and  better  law  of  his  mind,  and 
bring  him  into  subjection  to  sin !  If,  indeed,  it  were  true,  as 
has  been  asserted,  that  the  person  here  described  "  succumbs  to 
sin  IN  EVERY  INSTANCE  of  coutest,"*  the  description  would  be 
inapplicable  not  to  the  Christian  only,  but  to  any  other  than 
the  most  immoral  of  men.  It  is  rare  indeed,  even  in  the 
natural  conflict  between  reason  and  passion,  or  conscience  and 
corrupt  inclination,  that  the  better  principle  does  not  succeed, 
not  once  merely,  but  often.  There  is,  however,  nothing 
even  approaching  to  the  implication  of  such  a  sentiment  in  the 
whole  passage.  Paul  merely  asserts  that  the  believer  is,  and 
ever  remains  in  this  life,  imperfectly  sanctified ;  that  sin  con- 
tinues to  dwell  within  him ;  that  he  never  comes  up  to  the  full 
requisitions  of  the  law,  however  anxiously  he  may  desire  it. 
Often  as  he  subdues  one  spiritual  foe,  another  rises  in  a  differ- 
ent form ;  so  that  he  cannot  do  the  things  that  he  would ;  that 
is,  cannot  be  perfectly  conformed  in  heart  and  life  to  the  image 
of  God. 

It  must  have  been  in  a  moment  of  forgetfulness,  that  such  a 
man  as  Tholuck  could  quote  with  approbation  the  assertion  of 
Br.  A.  Clarke :  "  This  opinion  has  most  pitifully  and  shame- 
fully,   not    only   lowered    the    standard    of   Christianity,    but 

*  Professor  Stuart,  p.  558. 


380  ROMANS  VII.  14—25. 

destroyed  its  influence  and  disgraced  its  character."  "What 
lamentable  blindness  to  notorious  facts  does  such  language 
evince !  From  the  days  of  Job  and  David  to  the  present  hour, 
the  holiest  men  have  been  the  most  ready  to  acknowledge  and 
deplore  the  existence  and  power  of  indwelling  sin.  Without 
appealing  to  individual  illustrations  of  the  truth  of  this  remark, 
look  at  masses  of  men,  at  Augustinians  and  Pelagians,  Calvin- 
ists  and  Remonstrants:  in  all  ages  the  strictest  doctrines  and 
the  sternest  morals  have  been  found  united.  It  is  not  those 
who  have  most  exalted  human  ability,  that  have  most  advan- 
tageously exhibited  the  fruits  of  its  power.  It  has  been  rather 
those  who,  with  the  lowest  views  of  themselves,  and  the  highest 
apprehensions  of  the  efficacy  of  the  grace  of  God,  have  been 
able  to  adopt  the  language  of  Paul,  "  What  I  would,  that  do  I 
not;"  and  who,  looking  away  from  themselves  to  him  through 
whom  they  can  do  all  things,  have  shown  the  Divine  strength 
manifested  in  their  weakness. 

III.  While  there  is  nothing  in  the  sentiments  of  this  passage 
which  a  true  Christian  may  not  adopt,  there  is  much  which 
cannot  be  asserted  by  any  unrenewed  man.  As  far  as  this 
point  is  concerned,  the  decision  depends,  of  course,  on  the  cor- 
rect interpretation  of  the  several  expressions  employed  by  the 
apostle.  1.  What  is  the  true  meaning  of  the  phrases  "inward 
man"  and  "law  of  the  mind,"  when  opposed  to  "the  flesh"  and 
"the  law  in  the  members"?  The  sense  of  these  expressions  is 
to  be  determined  by  their  use  in  other  passages ;  or  if  they  do 
not  elsewhere  occur,  by  the  meaning  attached  to  those  which 
are  obviously  substituted  for  them.  As  from  the  similarity 
of  the  passages,  it  can  hardly  be  questioned,  that  what  Paul 
here  calls  "the  inward  man"  and  "law  of  the  mind,"  he,  in 
Gal.  V.  17,  and  elsewhere,  calls  "the  Spirit;"  it  is  plain  that 
he  intends,  by  these  terms,  to  designate  the  soul  considered  as 
renewed,  in  opposition  to  the  "flesh,"  or  the  soul  considered 
as  destitute  of  Divine  influence.  2.  It  is  not  in  accordance 
with  the  scriptural  representation  of  the  wicked,  to  describe 
them  as  consenting  to  the  law  of  God;  as  hating  sin,  and 
struggling  against  it ;  groaning  under  it  as  a  tyrant's  yoke ; 
as  delighting  in  the  law  of  God,  i.  e.  in  holiness :  doing  all  this, 
not  as  men,  but  as  men  viewed  in  a  particular  aspect  as  to  the 


ROMANS  VII.  14—25.  381 

inward  or  new  man.  This  is  not  the  scriptural  representation 
of  the  natural  man,  who  does  not  receive  the  things  of  the 
Spirit  of  God,  and  cannot  know  them,  1  Cor.  ii.  14.  On  the 
contrary,  the  carnal  mind  is  enmity  against  God  and  his  law. 
They  therefore  who  are  in  the  flesh,  that  is,  who  have  this 
carnal  mind,  hate  and  oppose  the  law,  Rom.  viii.  7,  8.  The 
expressions  here  used  by  the  apostle,  are  such  as,  throughout 
the  Scriptures,  are  used  to  describe  the  exercises  of  the  pious, 
"whose  delight  is  in  the  law  of  the  Lord,  Ps.  i.  2.  3.  Not 
only  do  these  particular  expressions  show  that  the  writer  is  a 
true  Christian,  but  the  whole  conflict  here  described  is  such 
as  is  peculiar  to  the  sincere  believer.  There  is,  indeed,  in 
the  natural  man,  something  very  analogous  to  this,  when  his 
conscience  is  enlightened,  and  his  better  feelings  come  into 
collision  with  the  strong  inclination  to  evil  which  dwells  in  his 
mind.  But  this  struggle  is  very  far  below  that  which  the 
apostle  here  describes.  The  true  nature  of  this  conflict  seems 
to  be  ascertained  beyond  dispute,  by  the  parallel  passage  in 
Gal.  V.  17,  already  referred  to.  It  cannot  be  denied,  that  to 
possess  the  Spirit  is,  in  scriptural  language,  a  characteristic 
mark  of  a  true  Christian.  "But  ye  are  not  in  the  flesh,  but  in 
the  spirit,  if  so  be  the  Spirit  of  God  dwell  in  you.  Now  if  any 
man  have  not  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  he  is  none  of  his."  Rom. 
viii.  9.  Those,  therefore,  who  have  that  Spirit,  are  Christians. 
This  being  the  case,  it  will  not  be  doubted  that  the  passage  in 
Galatians,  in  which  the  spirit  is  represented  as  warring  against 
the  flesh,  and  the  flesh  against  the  spirit,  is  descriptive  of  the 
experience  of  the  true  believer.  But  the  conflict  there  described 
is  identical  with  that  of  which  the  same  apostle  speaks  in  this 
chapter.  This  is  evident,  not  merely  from  the  fact  that  one 
of  the  antagonist  principles  is,  in  both  cases,  called  flesh,  but 
because  the  description  is  nearly  in  the  same  words.  In  conse- 
quence of  the  opposition  of  the  flesh  and  spirit,  Paul  tells  the 
Galatians  they  cannot  do  the  things  that  they  would ;  and  he 
says  here  of  himself,  that  in  consequence  of  the  opposition 
between  the  flesh  and  the  law  of  his  mind,  what  he  would  he 
did  not.  The  same  conflict  and  the  same  bondage  are  described 
in  each  case ;  and  if  the  one  be  descriptive  of  the  exercises  of  a 
true  Christian,  the  other  must  be  so  also. 


382  ROMANS  VII.  14—25. 

IV.  The  context,  or  the  connection  of  this  passage  with  the 
preceding  and  succeeding  chapters,  is  in  favour  of  the  common 
interpretation.  The  contrary  is,  indeed,  strongly  asserted  by 
those  who  take  the  opposite  view  of  the  passage.  Tholuck 
seems  to  admit  that,  were  it  not  for  the  context,  the  whole  of 
the  latter  part  of  the  chapter  might  well  be  understood  of  the 
believer:  see  his  remarks  on  ver.  14.  And  Professor  Stuart 
says,  "I  repeat  the  remark,  that  the  question  is  not,  whether 
what  is  here  said  might  he  applied  to  Christians ;  but  whether, 
from  the  tenor  of  the  context,  it  appears  to  have  been  the 
intention  of  the  Avriter  that  it  should  be  so  applied.  This  prin- 
ciple cannot  fail  to  settle  the  question  concerning  such  an 
application."  P.  558.  It  may  be  proper  to  pause  and  remark, 
that  such  statements  involve  a  renunciation  of  the  arguments 
derived  from  the  inapplicability  to  the  real  Christian,  of  what 
is  here  said.  Everything  is  here  admitted  to  be  in  itself  appli- 
cable to  him,  did  but  the  context  allow  it  to  be  so  applied.  Yet 
every  one  is  aware  that  no  argument  is  more  frequently  and 
strongly  urged  against  the  common  interpretation,  than  that 
the  description  here  given  is,  in  its  very  nature,  unsuitable  to 
Christian  experience.  On  the  same  page  which  contains  the 
passage  just  quoted,  Professor  Stuart  says,  "As,  however,  there 
is  no  denying  the  truth  of  these  and  the  like  declarations,*  and 
no  receding  from  them,  nor  explaining  them  away  as  meaning 
less  than  habitual  victory/  over  sin;  so  it  follows,  that  when 
vs.  14 — 25  are  applied  to  Christian  experience,  they  are 
wrongly  applied.  The  person  represented  in  these  verses, 
succumbs  to  sin  IN  every  instance  of  contest."  This  is  cer- 
tainly an  argument  against  applying  the  passage  in  question  to 
the  Christian,  founded  on  the  assumption  that  it  is,  from  its 
nature,  entirely  inapplicable.  And  the  argument  is  perfectly 
conclusive,  if  the  meaning  of  the  passage  be  what  is  here  stated. 
But  it  is  believed  that  this  is  very  far  from  being  its  true  mean- 
ing, as  shown  above.  This  argument,  however,  it  appears,  is 
not  insisted  upon;  everything  is  made  to  depend  upon  the 
context. 

Many  distinguished  commentators,  as  Alfonso  Turrettin, 
Knapp,  Tholuck,  Flatt,  and  Stuart,  consider  this  chapter,  from 

*  <He  yrho  loveth  Christ,  keepeth  Ms  commaudmeuts,'  &c. 


ROMANS  VII.  14—25.  383 

ver.  7  to  the  end,  as  a  commentary  upon  ver.  5,  in  •which  verse 
the  state  of  those  who  are  in  "the  flesh"  is  spoken  of;  and  the 
first  part  of  the  next  chapter  as  a  commentary  on  ver.  6,  which 
speaks  of  those  who  are  no  longer  under  the  law.  Accord- 
ingly, vs.  7 — 25  are  descriptive  of  the  exercises  of  a  man  yet 
under  the  law ;  and  viii.  1 — 17,  of  those  of  a  man  under  the 
gospel,  or  of  a  believer.  It  is  said  that  the  two  passages  are  in 
direct  antithesis;  the  one  describes  the  state  of  a  captive  to 
sin,  vii.  23,  and  the  other  the  state  of  one  who  is  delivered 
from  sin,  viii.  2.  This  is  certainly  ingenious  and  plausible,  but 
is  founded  on  a  twofold  misapprehension ;  first,  as  to  the  nature 
of  this  captivity  to  sin,  or  the  real  meaning  of  the  former 
passage,  vii.  14 — 25;  and,  secondly,  as  to  the  correct  inter- 
pretation of  the  latter  passage,  or  viii.  1 — 17.  If  vii.  14 — 25 
really  describes  such  a  captivity  as  these  authors  suppose,  in 
which  the  individual  spoken  of  "succumbs  to  sin  in  every 
instance,"  there  is,  of  course,  an  end  of  this  question,  and  that 
too  without  any  appeal  to  the  context  for  support.  But,  on  the 
other  hand,  if  it  describes  no  such  state,  but,  as  Tholuck  and 
Professor  Stuart  admit,  contains  nothing  which  might  not  be 
said  of  the  Christian,  the  whole  force  of  the  argument  is  gone ; 
verses  7 — 25  are  no  longer  necessarily  a  comment  on  ver.  5, 
nor  viii.  1 — 17  on  ver.  6.  The  antithesis  of  course  ceases,  if 
the  interpretation,  to  which  it  owes  its  existence,  be  abandoned. 
The  matter,  after  all,  therefore,  is  made  to  depend  on  the  cor- 
rect exposition  of  the  passage  (vs.  14 — 25)  itself.  A  particular 
interpretation  cannot  first  be  assumed,  in  order  to  make  out  the 
antithesis ;  and  then  the  antithesis  be  assumed,  to  justify  the 
interpretation.  This  would  be  reasoning  in  a  circle.  In  the 
second  place,  this  view  of  the  context  is  founded,  as  is  believed, 
on  an  erroneous  exegesis  of  viii.  1 — 17.  The  first  part  of  that 
chapter  is  not  so  intimately  connected  with  the  latter  part  of 
this;  nor  is  it  designed  to  show  that  the  Christian  is  delivered 
from  "the  law  of  sin  and  death"  in  his  members.  For  the 
grounds  of  this  statement,  the  reader  is  referred  to  the  com- 
mentary on  the  passage  in  question.  Even  if  the  reverse  were 
the  fact,  still,  unless  it  can  be  previously  shown  that  vs.  14 — 25 
of  this  chapter  describe  the  state  of  a  man  under  the  law,  there 
is  no  ground  for  the  assumption  of  such  an  antithesis  between 


384  ROMANS  VII.  14—25. 

the  two  passages  as  is  supposed  in  the  view  of  the  context 
stated  above.  Both  passages  might  describe  the  same  indivi- 
dual under  different  aspects ;  the  one  exhibiting  the  operation 
of  the  Law,  and  the  other  that  of  the  gospel  on  the  renewed 
mind.  But  if  the  exposition  given  below  of  viii.  1 — 17,  is 
correct,  there  is  not  a  shadow  of  foundation  for  the  argument 
derived  from  the  context  against  the  common  interpretation 
of  vii.  14—25. 

The  whole  tenor  of  the  apostle's  argument,  from  the  begin- 
ning of  the  epistle  to  the  close  of  this  chapter,  is  not  only  con- 
sistent with  the  common  interpretation,  but  seems  absolutely  to 
demand  it.  His  great  object  in  the  first  eight  chapters,  is  to 
show  that  the  whole  work  of  the  sinner's  salvation,  his  justifica- 
tion and  sanctification,  are  not  of  the  law,  but  of  grace;  that 
legal  obedience  can  never  secure  the  one,  nor  legal  efforts  the 
other.  Accordingly,  in  the  first  five  chapters,  he  shows  that 
we  are  justified  by  faith,  without  the  works  of  the  law ;  in  the 
sixth,  that  this  doctrine  of  gratuitous  justification,  instead  of 
leading  to  licentiousness,  presents  the  only  certain  and  effectual 
means  of  sanctification.  In  the  beginning  of  the  seventh 
chapter,  he  shows  that  the  believer  is  really  thus  free  from  the 
law,  and  is  now  under  grace ;  and  that  while  under  the  law  he 
brought  forth  fruit  unto  sin,  but  being  under  grace,  he  now 
brings  forth  fruit  unto  God.  The  question  here  arises,  Why  is 
the  holy,  just,  and  good  law  thus  impotent?  Is  it  because  it  is 
evil?  Far  from  it;  the  reason  lies  in  our  own  corruption. 
Then,  to  show  how  this  is,  and  why  the  objective  and  authorita- 
tive exhibition  of  truth  cannot  sanctify,  the  apostle  proceeds  to 
show  how  it  actually  operates  on  the  depraved  mind.  In  the 
first  place,  it  enlightens  conscience,  and,  in  the  second,  it 
rouses  the  opposition  of  the  corrupt  heart.  These  are  the  two 
elements  of  conviction  of  sin ;  a  knowledge  of  its  nature,  and  a 
sense  of  its  power  over  ourselves.  Hence  the  feeling  of  self- 
condemnation,  of  helplessness  and  misery.  Thus  the  law  slays. 
This  is  one  portion  of  its  effect,  but  not  the  whole ;  for,  even 
after  the  heart  is  renewed,  as  it  is  but  imperfectly  sanctified, 
the  law  is  still  unable  to  promote  holiness.  The  reason  here 
again  is  not  that  the  law  is  evil,  but  that  we  are  carnal,  ver.  14. 
Indwelling  sin,  as  the  apostle  calls  it,  is  the  cause  why  the  law 


ROMANS  YII.  14—25.  385 

cannot  effect  the  sanctification  even  of  the  belicA-er.  It  pre- 
sents, indeed,  the  form  of  beauty,  and  the  soul  delights  in  it 
after  the  inward  man ;  but  the  aorrupt  affections,  which'  turn 
to  self  and  the  world,  are  still  there :  these  the  law  cannot 
destroy.  But  though  the  law  cannot  do  this,  it  shall  eventually 
be  done.  Thanks  to  God,  through  Jesus  Christ,  our  case  is  not 
hopeless ! 

The  apostle's  object  would  have  been  but  half  attained,  had 
he  not  thus  exhibited  the  effect  of  the  law  upon  the  believer's 
mind,  and  demonstrated  that  a  sense  of  legal  bondage  was  not 
necessary  to  the  Christian,  and  could  not  secure  his  sanctifica- 
tion. Having  done  this,  his  object  is  accomplished.  The  eighth 
chapter,  therefore,  is  not  so  intimately  connected  with  the 
seventh.  It  does  not  commence  with  an  inference  from  the 
discussion  in  vs.  7 — 25,  but  from  the  whole  preceding  exhibi- 
tion. "  There  is,  therefore,  now  no  condemnation  to  them  that 
are  in  Christ  Jesus."  Why?  Because  they  are  sanctified?  No; 
but  because  they  are  not  under  the  law.  This  is  the  main 
point,  from  first  to  last.  They  are  delivered  from  that  law, 
which,  however  good  in  itself,  can  only  produce  sin  and  death, 
ver.  2.  In  view  of  this  insuj0ficiency  of  the  law,  God,  having 
sent  his  Son  as  a  sacrifice  for  sin,  has  delivered  them  from  it, 
by  condemning  sin  in  him,  and  has  thus  secured  the  justification 
of  believers.  Through  him  they  satisfy  the  demands  of  the  law, 
and  their  salvation  is  rendered  certain.  This,  however,  implies 
that  they  do  not  live  after  the  flesh,  but  after  the  Spirit,  agree- 
ably to  the  doctrine  of  the  sixth  chapter ;  for  salvation  in  sin  is 
a  contradiction  in  terms. 

There  is,  therefore,  no  such  antithesis  between  the  seventh 
and  eighth  chapters,  as  the  opposite  interpretation  supposes. 
It  is  not  the  design  of  the  latter  to  show  that  men  are  delivered 
from  indwelling  sin;  or  that  the  conflict  between  the  "law  in 
the  members"  and  "the  law  of  the  mind,"  between  the  flesh 
and  Spirit,  ceases  when  men  embrace  the  gospel.  But  it  shoAvs 
that  this  consummation  is  secured  to  all  who  are  in  Christ,  to 
all  who  do  not  deliberately  and  of  choice  walk  after  the  flesh, 
and  make  it  their  guide  and  master.  In  virtue  of  deliverance 
from  the  law,  and  introduction  into  a  state  of  grace,  the  believer 
has  not  only  his  acceptance  with  God,  but  his  final  deliverance 
25 


386  ROMANS  VII.  14—25. 

from  sin  secured.  Sin  shall  not  triumph  in  those  who  have  the 
Spirit  of  Christ,  and  who,  by  that  Spirit,  mortify  the  deeds  of 
the  body. 

If,  then,  the  context  is  altogether  favourable  to  the  ordinary 
interpretation;  if  the  passage  is  accurately  descriptive  of 
Christian  experience,  and  analogous  to  other  inspired  accounts 
of  the  exercises  of  the  renewed  heart ;  if  not  merely  particular 
expressions,  but  the  whole  tenor  of  the  discourse,  is  inconsistent 
with  the  scriptural  account  of  the  natural  man ;  and  if  Paul,  in 
the  use  of  the  first  person  and  the  present  tense,  cannot,  with- 
out violence,  be  considered  otherwise  than  as  expressing  his 
own  feelings  while  writing,  we  have  abundant  reason  to  rest 
satisfied  with  the  obvious  sense  of  the  passage. 

DOCTRINE. 

1.  No  man  is  perfectly  sanctified  in  this  life.  At  least,  Paul 
was  not,  according  to  his  own  confession,  when  he  wrote  this 
passage,  vs.  14 — 25. 

2.  The  law  is  spiritual,  that  is,  perfect,  deriving  its  character 
from  its  author,  the  Spirit  of  God.  It  is,  therefore,  the  unerr- 
ing standard  of  duty,  and  the  source  of  moral  light  or  know- 
ledge. It  should,  therefore,  be  everywhere  known  and  studied, 
and  faithfully  applied  as  the  rule  of  judgment  for  our  own 
conduct,  and  that  of  others.  Evangelical  doctrines,  therefore, 
which  teach  the  necessity  of  freedom  from  the  law  as  a  cove- 
nant of  works,  i.  e.  as  prescribing  the  terms  of  our  justification 
before  God,  derogate  neither  from  its  excellence  nor  its  author- 
ity. It  is  left  to  do  its  proper  work  in  the  economy  of  redemp- 
tion ;  to  convince  of  sin,  and  be  a  guide  to  duty,  ver.  14,  &c. 

3.  The  mere  presentation  of  truth,  apart  from  the  influ- 
ences of  the  Spirit,  can  neither  renew  nor  sanctify  the  heart, 
ver.  14,  &c. 

4.  Inability  is  consistent  with  responsibility.  "  To  perform 
that  which  is  good  I  find  not,"  that  is,  I  cannot,  ver.  18;  Gal. 
V.  17.  As  the  Scriptures  constantly  recognise  the  truth  of 
these  two  things,  so  are  they  constantly  united  in  Christian 
experience.  Every  one  feels  that  he  cannot  do  the  things  that 
he  would,  yet  is  sensible  that  he  is  to  blame  for  not  doing  them. 


ROMANS  VII.  14—25.  387 

Let  any  man  test  his  power  by  the  requisition  to  love  God  per- 
fectly at  all  times.  Alas !  how  entire  our  inability ;  yet  how 
deep  our  self-loathing  and  self-condemnation ! 

5.  The  emotions  and  affections  do  not  obey  a  determination 
of  the  will,  vs.  16,  18,  19,  21.  A  change  of  purpose,  therefore, 
is  not  a  change  of  heart. 

6.  The  Christian's  victory  over  sin  cannot  be  achieved  by 
the  strength  of  his  resolutions,  nor  by  the  plainness  and  force 
of  moral  motives,  nor  by  any  resources  within  himself.  He 
looks  to  Jesus  Christ,  and  conquers  in  his  strength.  In  other 
words,  the  victory  is  not  obtained  in  the  way  of  nature,  but  of 
grace,  vs.  14 — 25. 

REMARKS. 

1.  As  the  believer's  life  is  a  constant  conflict,  those  who  do 
not  struggle  against  sin,  and  endeavour  to  subdue  it,  are  not 
true  Christians,  vs.  14 — 25. 

2.  The  person  here  described  hates  sin,  ver.  15;  acknow- 
ledges and  delights  in  the  spirituality  of  the  divine  law, 
vs.  16,  22 ;  he  considers  his  corruption  a  dreadful  burden,  from 
which  he  earnestly  desires  to  be  delivered,  ver.  24.  These  are 
exercises  of  genuine  piety,  and  should  be  applied  as  tests  of 
character. 

3.  It  is  an  evidence  of  an  unrenewed  heart  to  express  or  feel 
opposition  to  the  law  of  God,  as  though  it  were  too  strict ;  or 
to  be  disposed  to  throw  off  the  blame  of  our  want  of  conformity 
to  the  divine  will  from  ourselves  upon  the  law,  as  unreasonable. 
The  renewed  man  condemns  himself,  and  justifies  God,  even 
while  he  confesses  and  mourns  his  inability  to  conform  to  the 
divine  requisitions,  vs.  14 — 25. 

4.  The  strength  and  extent  of  the  corruption  of  our  nature 
are  seen  from  its  influence  over  the  best  of  men,  and  from  its 
retaining  more  or  less  of  its  power,  under  all  circumstances,  to 
the  end  of  life,  ver.  25. 

5.  This  corruption,  although  its  power  is  acknowledged,  so 
far  from  being  regarded  as  an  excuse  or  palliation  for  our  indi- 
vidual offences,  is  recognised  as  the  greatest  aggravation  of  our 
guilt.     To  say,  with  the  feelings  of  the  apostle,  "I  am  carnal," 


388  ROMANS  VIII.  1—39. 

is  to  utter  the  strongest  language  of  self-condemnation  and  self- 
abhorrence,  vs.  14 — 25. 

6.  Although  the  believer  is  never  perfectly  sanctified  in  this 
life,  his  aim  and  efforts  are  ever  onward ;  and  the  experience 
of  the  power  of  indwelling  sin  teaches  him  the  value  of  heaven, 
and  prepares  him  for  the  enjoyment  of  it,  vs.  14 — 25. 


CHAPTER    yill. 

CONTENTS. 

Paul  had  now  finished  his  exhibition  of  the  plan  of  salvation. 
He  had  shown  that  we  are  justified  gratuitously,  that  is,  by 
faith  in  Jesus  Christ,  without  the  works  of  the  law.  He  had 
proved  that,  so  far  from  this  freedom  from  the  law  leading  to 
the  indulgence  of  sin,  it  is  necessary  to  our  sanctification, 
because  the  law  is  as  inadequate  to  the  production  of  holiness 
in  the  sinner,  as  it  is  to  secure  pardon  or  acceptance  with  God. 
That  such  is  the  insufficiency  of  the  law,  he  proved  by  exhibit- 
ing its  operation  both  on  the  renewed  and  unrenewed  mind. 
Having  accomplished  all  this,  he  leaves,  in  the  chapter  before 
lis,  the  field  of  logical  argument,  and  enters  on  the  new  and 
more  elevated  sphere  of  joyous  exultation.  As,  however, 
there  is  always  warmth  of  feeling  in  the  apostle's  argument, 
so  also  is  there  generally  logical  arrangement  in  his  highest 
triumphs. 

His  theme  here  is  the  security  of  believers.  The  salvation 
of  those  who  have  renounced  the  law,  and  accepted  the  gracious 
ofifers  of  the  gospel,  is  shown  to  be  absolutely  certain.  The 
whole  chapter  is  a  series  of  arguments,  most  beautifully 
arranged,  in  support  of  this  one  point.  They  are  all  traced 
back  to  the  great  source  of  hope  and  security,  the  unmerited 
and  unchanging  love  of  God  in  Christ  Jesus.  The  proposition 
is  contained  in  the  first  verse.  There  is  no  condemnation  to 
those  who  are  in  Christ  Jesus :  they  shall  never  be  condemned 
or  perish. 


ROMANS  VIII.  1—11.  389 

1.  Because  thej  are  delivered  from  the  law;  all  its  demands 
being  fulfilled  in  them  by  the  mission  and  sacrifice  of  Chi-ist, 
vs.  1 — 4.  2.  Because  their  salvation  is  actually  begun  in  the 
regeneration  and  sanctification  of  their  hearts  by  the  Holy 
Spirit.  Those  who  have  the  Spirit  of  Christ  have  the  Spirit 
of  life,  vs.  5 — 11.  3.  Not  only  is  their  salvation  begun,  but 
they  are  the  children  of  God,  and  if  children,  they  are  heirs, 
vs.  12 — 17.  4.  The  afilictions  which  they  may  be  called  to 
endure,  are  not  inconsistent  with  this  filial  relation  to  God, 
because  they  are  utterly  insignificant  in  comparison  with  the 
glory  that  shall  be  revealed  in  them ;  and  under  these  afflictions 
they  are  sustained  both  by  hope  and  the  intercessions  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  vs.  18 — 28.  5.  Because  they  are  predestinated 
to  the  attainment  of  eternal  life ;  of  which  predestination  their 
present  sanctification  or  effectual  calling  is  the  result,  and 
therefore  the  evidence,  vs.  28 — 30.  6.  Because  God  has  given 
his  Son  to  die  for  them,  and  thereby  to  secure  their  justifica- 
tion and  salvation,  vs.  31 — 34.  7.  Because  the  love  of  God  is 
infinite  and  unchangeable;  from  which  nothing  can  separate 
us,  vs.  35 — 39.  Thus  from  the  proximate  cause  of  salvation, 
or  the  indwelling  of  the  Spirit,  does  the  apostle  rise  with  ever- 
increasing  confidence,  to  the  great  source  and  fountain  of  all, 
in  the  love  of  God.* 

Although,  according  to  this  view  of  the  chapter,  it  is  one 
whole,  it  may,  for  the  sake  of  convenience,  be  divided  intp 
three  sections. 

ROMANS  VIII.  1—11. 

ANALYSIS. 

This  section  contains  the  development  of  the  first  two  of  the 
apostle's  arguments  in  favour  of  the  position,  that  those  who 
are  in  Christ  Jesus  shall  never  be  condemned.  The  immediate 
reason  is  assigned  in  the  second  verse — they  are  delivered  from 
the  law.     For,  in  view  of  the  insufficiency  of  the  law,  God  sent 

*  The  same  genei'al  view  of  the  design  of  this  chapter,  and  of  the  course  of 
the  apostle's  argument,  is  given  in  the  analysis  of  this  epistle,  by  Stephen 
de  Brais. 


390  ROMANS  VIII.  1. 

forth  his  Son  as  a  sacrifice  for  sin,  ver.  3 ;  and  thus  secured 
the  justification  of  all  believers,  ver.  4.  Being  thus  delivered 
from  the  law,  they  walk  not  after  the  flesh,  but  after  the  Spirit, 
and  this  possession  of  the  Spirit  is  incipient  salvation :  because 
the  carnal  mind,  which,  of  course,  all  who  are  in  the  flesh  pos- 
sess, is  death;  whereas  a  mind  under  the  government  of  the 
Spirit  is  life  and  peace.  Such  is  the  very  nature  of  the  case. 
Holiness  is  salvation,  vs.  5 — 7.  The  reason  that  death  is  the 
necessary  consequence  of  being  carnally  minded,  is  the  essen- 
tial opposition  between  such  a  state  of  mind  and  God.  Hence, 
those  who  have  this  state  of  mind  are  the  objects  of  the  Divine 
displeasure,  vs.  7,  8.  As,  however,  believers  are  not  under  the 
government  of  the  flesh,  but  of  the  Spirit,  their  salvation  is 
secured,  even  to  the  resurrection  of  the  body.  For  if  the  Spirit 
of  Him  who  raised  up  Jesus  from  the  dead,  dwell  in  them,  he 
shall  also  quicken  their  mortal  bodies,  vs.  9 — 11. 

COMMENTARY. 

Verse  1.  There  is,  therefore,  now  no  condemnation  to  them 
which  are  in  Christ  Jesus.  It  is  a  matter  of  considerable 
importance  to  the  understanding  of  this  chapter,  to  decide  what 
is  its  precise  relation  to  the  preceding  part  of  the  epistle.  The 
word  therefore  indicates  that  what  follows  is  an  inference ;  but 
from  what  ?  From  the  conclusion  of  the  seventh  chapter,  or 
from  the  whole  previous  discussion?  The  latter  seems  to  be 
the  only  correct  view  of  the  context ;  because  the  fact  that 
there  is  no  condemnation  to  believers,  is  no  fair  inference  from 
what  is  said  at  the  close  of  the  preceding  chapter.  Paul  does 
not  mean  to  say,  as  Luther  and  others  explain  ver.  1,  that 
there  is  nothing  worthy  of  condemnation  in  the  Christian, 
because  with  his  mind  he  serves  the  law  of  God.  Nor  does  he 
mean,  at  least  in  the  first  few  verses,  to  argue  that  believers 
shall  not  be  condemned,  because  they  are  freed  from  the 
dominion  of  sin.  But  the  inference,  in  the  first  verse,  is  the 
legitimate  conclusion  of  all  that  Paul  had  previously  estab- 
lished. Believers  shall  be  saved,  because  they  are  not  under 
the  law,  but  under  grace,  which  is  the  main  point  in  all  that 
Paul  has  yet  said.     There  is,  therefore,  now,  i.  e.  under  these 


ROMANS  VIII.  1.  391 

circumstances,  viz.  the  circumstances  set  forth  in  the  previous 
part  of  the  epistle.  The  decision  of  the  question  as  to  the  con- 
nection depends  on  the  view  taken  of  the  apostle's  argument. 
If  he  argues  that  believers  are  not  liable  to  condemnation, 
because  with  the  mind  they  serve  the  law  of  God,  then  the  con- 
nection is  with  what  immediately  precedes.  But  if  his  argu- 
ment is,  that  those  in  Christ  are  not  exposed  to  condemnation, 
notwithstanding  their  imperfect  sanctification,  because  Christ 
has  died  as  a  sacrifice  for  their  sins,  then  the  connection  is 
with  the  main  argument  of  the  epistle.  Since  men,  being  sin- 
ners, cannot  be  justified  by  works ;  since  by  the  obedience  of 
one  man,  Jesus  Christ,  the  many  are  made  righteous ;  and  since 
through  him,  and  not  through  the  law,  deliverance  from  the 
subjective  power  of  sin  is  effected,  therefore  it  follows  that 
there  is  no  condemnation  to  those  who  are  in  him. 

There  is  no  condemnation,  obdku  xavdxpcfia,  does  not  mean 
nihil  damnatione  dignwn  (nothing  worthy  of  condemnation,)  as 
Erasmus  and  many  others  render  it,  but  there  is  no  condemna- 
tion. Those  who  are  in  Christ  are  not  exposed  to  condemnation. 
And  this  again  is  not  to  be  understood  as  descriptive  of  their 
present  state  merely,  but  of  their  permanent  position.  They 
are  placed  beyond  the  reach  of  condemnation.  They  shall 
never  be  condemned.  The  meaning  of  a  proposition  is  often 
best  understood  by  the  arguments  by  which  it  is  sustained.  It 
is  so  in  this  case.  The  whole  chapter  is  a  proof  of  the  safety 
of  believers,  of  their  security  not  only  from  present  condemna- 
tion, but  from  future  perdition.  Nothing  shall  ever  separate 
them  from  the  love  of  God,  is  the  triumphant  conclusion  to 
which  the  apostle  ai-rives.  Those  to  whom  there  is  and  never 
can  be  any  condemnation,  are  described,  first  as  to  their  rela- 
tion to  Christ,  and  secondly  as  to  their  character.  The  first 
assigns  the  reason  of  their  security,  the  second  enables  us  to 
determine  to  whom  that  security  belongs.  First,  thei/  are  in 
Christ.  In  what  sense  ?  This  must  be  determined,  not  so  much 
from  the  force  of  the  words,  as  from  the  teachings  of  Scripture. 
1.  They  are  in  him  federally,  as  all  men  were  in  Adam,  1  Cor. 
XV.  22,  Rom.  v.  12 — 21.  2.  They  are  in  him  vitally,  as  the 
branch  is  in  the  vine,  John  xv.  1 — 7;  or,  as  the  head  and  mem- 
bers of  the  body  are  in  vital  union,  1  Cor.  xii.  27,  Eph.  i.  23. 


392  ROMANS  VIIL  2. 

This  union  arises  from  the  indwelling  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  1  Cor. 
xii.  13,  vi.  15,  19.  3.  They  are  in  him  by  faith,  Eph.  iii.  17, 
Gal.  iii.  26,  27.  It  is  not  in  virtue  of  any  one  of  these  bonds 
of  union  exclusively,  but  in  virtue  of  them  all  (so  far  as  adults 
are  concerned,)  that  there  is  no  condemnation  to  those  Avho  are 
in  Christ  Jesus.  It  follows  from  the  nature  of  this  union,  that 
it  must  transform  the  character  of  those  who  are  its  subjects. 
If,  therefore,  any  man  is  in  Christ  Jesus,  he  is  a  new  creature, 
2  Cor.  V.  17,  John  xv.  4,  Phil.  iii.  19,  Col.  ii.  6,  1  John  ii.  5, 
iii.  6.  As  the  union  includes  the  bodies  of  believers,  as  well  as 
their  souls,  1  Cor.  vi.  15 — 19,  so  this  transforming  power  will 
ultimately  extend  to  the  former  as  well  as  to  the  latter,  Rom. 
viii.  10,  11.  In  this  verse,  (according  to  the  common  text,)  the 
transforming  power  of  this  union  with  Christ  is  expressed  by 
saying,  that  those  who  are  in  him,  tvalk  not  after  the  Jlesh,  but 
after  the  Spirit.  To  walk  means  to  regulate  the  inward  and 
outward  life.  It  includes,  therefore,  the  determination  of  the 
judgments,  the  feelings,  the  pm-poses,  as  well  as  the  external 
conduct.  The  controlling  principle  in  believers  is  not  the  flesh, 
i.  e.  the  corrupt  nature,  but  the  Holy  Spirit  who  dwells  in 
them,  as  the  source  of  knowledge,  of  holiness,  of  strength,  of 
peace  and  love.  They  are  not  aapxcxoc  governed  by  the  ffdp^j 
but  Tiueofxauxoi  governed  by  the  Spirit.  The  only  evidence 
therefore  to  ourselves,  or  to  others,  of  our  being  in  Christ,  is 
this  subjection  of  the  whole  life  to  the  control  of  his  Spirit,  so 
that  we  discern  and  believe  the  truth,  1  Cor.  ii.  14 — 16,  and 
are  governed  by  it.  When  the  word  Trveupa  is  not  only  without 
the  article,  and  opposed  to  odp^,  it  may  be  understood  of  the 
Spirit  as  the  principle  of  life  in  the  believer,  and  in  that  view 
be  equivalent  to  the  new  man,  or  the  renewed  principle.  This 
is  the  view  adopted  by  many  as  the  meaning  of  the  word  in  this 
passage.  This  clause,  however,  is  of  doubtful  authority.  It 
Qccurs  in  ver.  4,  and  may  by  a  transcriber  have  been  trans- 
ferred to  this  place.  The  whole  clause  is  omitted  in  the  major- 
ity of  the  uncial  MSS.,  and  by  the  great  body  of  modern  critics. 
The  latter  clause  only  is  omitted  in  the  MSS.  A.  D.  in  the  Vul- 
gate, and  by  Chrysostom,  which  reading  is  adopted  by  Bengel. 
Verse  2.  For  the  law  of  the  Spirit  of  life  in  Christ  Jesus,  &c. 
This  verse  assigns  the  reason  why  there  is  no  condemnation  to 


ROMANS  VIII.  2.  393 

those  who  are  in  Christ,  as  is  evident  from  the  use  of  for,  with 
which  the  verse  commences. 

The  law  of  the  Spirit  is  here  opposed  to  the  law  of  sin  and 
death,  mentioned  in  the  other  clause  of  the  verse.  The  inter- 
pretation of  the  one  phrase,  therefore,  must  decide  that  of  the 
otlier.  There  are  three  diflferent  views  which  may  be  taken 
of  the  verse.  1.  The  word  law  may  be  used  here  as  it  is  in 
vs.  21,  23,  of  chap,  vii.,  for  a  directing  power;  and  Spirit,  by 
metonymy,  for  that  wliich  the  Spirit  produces,  i.  e.  sanctified 
affections;  and  the  words  of  life  may  mean,  producing  life. 
The  sense  would  then  be,  '  The  power  of  the  renewed  principle 
which  tends  to  life,  has  delivered  me  from  the  power  of  sin 
which  tends  to  death.'  In  other  words,  'The  law  of  the  mind 
has  delivered  me  from  the  law  of  sin  which  is  in  the  members.* 
So  Beza  and  many  others.  2.  The  word  law  is  taken  in  nearly 
the  same  sense ;  but  Spirit  of  life  is  understood  to  mean  the 
Holy  Spirit,  considered  as  the  author  of  life.  The  sense  then 
is,  'The  power  of  the  life-giving  Spirit  has  delivered  me  from 
the  dominion  of  the  law  of  sin  and  death  in  my  members.'  So 
Calvin,  and  others:  "Legem  Spiritus  improprie  vocat  Dei 
Spiritum,  qui  animas  nostras  Christi  sanguine  aspergit,  non 
tantum  ut  a  peccati  labe  emundet  quoad  reatum;  sed  in  veram 
puritatem  sanctificet."  The  objection  to  this  interpretation, 
that  it  seems  to  refer  our  freedom  from  condemnation  to  our 
regeneration,  he  proposes  to  meet  by  saying  that  Paul  does  not 
state  the  cause,  but  the  method  of  our  deliverance  from  guilt: 
"Negat  Paulus  externa  legis  doctrina  id  nos  consequi,  sed  dum 
Spiritu  Dei  renovamur,  simul  etiam  justificari  gratuita  venia,  ne 
peccati  maledictio  in  nos  amplius  recumbat.  Perinde  ergo  valet 
haec  sentia  acsi  dixisset  Paulus,  regenerationis  gratiam  ab 
imputatione  justitise  nunquam  disjungi."  8.  According  to  the 
third  view,  the  law  of  the  Spirit  of  life  is  the  gospel,  i.  e.  the 
law  of  Avhich  the  life-giving  Spirit  is  the  author.  Of  course, 
the  other  member  of  the  verse,  instead  of  describing  the  corrupt 
principle  in  men,  means  the  law  of  God,  which,  as  Paul  had 
taught  in  chap,  vii.,  is  incidentally  the  cause  of  sin  and  death. 
The  sense  of  the  passage  then  is,  '  The  gospel  has  delivered  me 
from  the  law.'     So  Witsius,  &c. 

This  last  seems  decidedly  to  be  preferred,  for  the  following 


394  ROMANS  YIII.  2. 

reasons :  1.  Although  the  two  former  interpretations  are  con- 
sistent with  Paul's  use  of  the  word  law,  neither  of  them  so  well 
suits  the  context,  because  neither  assigns  the  reason  why 
believers  are  not  exposed  to  condemnation.  Paul  asserts  that 
those  who  are  in  Christ  are  restored  to  the  divine  favour. 
Why?  Because  they  are  sanctified?  No;  but  because  they 
have  been  freed  from  the  law  and  its  demands,  and  introduced 
into  a  state  of  grace.  2.  It  is  not  true  that  believers  are  deli- 
vered from  the  law  of  sin  in  their  members.  If  the  terms  law 
of  the  Spirit,  and  law  of  sin,  are  to  be  understood  of  the  good 
and  evil  principle  in  the  Christian,  how  can  it  be  said  that  by 
the  former  he  is,  in  this  life,  delivered  from  the  latter  ?  *  This 
would  be  in  direct  contradiction  to  chap.  vii.  and  to  experience. 
3.  The  terms  here  used  may  naturally  be  so  understood,  because 
the  word  law,  in  its  general  sense,  as  rule,  is  applicable  and  is 
applied  to  the  gospel,  Rom.  iii.  27,  especially  when  standing 
in  antithesis  to  the  law  of  works.  The  gospel  is  called  the  law 
of  the  Spirit,  because  he  is  its  author :  see  the  phrase  "  minis- 
tration of  the  Spirit,"  2  Cor.  iii.  8.  In  the  other  member  of 
the  verse  the  law  is  called  the  law  of  sin  and  death,  because 
productive  of  sin  and  death.  This  is  no  more  than  what  Paul 
had  said  expressly  of  the  law  in  the  preceding  chapter,  vs.  5, 
13,  &c.  And  in  2  Cor.  iii.  6,  the  law  is  said  to  kill :  it  is  called 
the  dcaxouca  too  d-audroo,  (the  ministration  of  death,)  and  the 
diaxopia  zrji;  xataxpcaeo)^,  (ministration  of  condemnation.)  There 
the  same  contrast  between  the  dcaxouia  zoo  d^avdroo  and  the 
diaxouca  too  Tvueufiavo^  is  presented,  as  here  between  the  pofio^ 
Tou  d^avdzou  and  the  nojxoc:  zoo  7:veufjLazo(;.  4.  This  interpreta- 
tion alone  assigns  an  adequate  ground  for  the  declaration  of  the 
preceding  verse.  That  declaration,  the  result  of  all  that  Paul 
had  yet  proved,  is  that  believers,  and  believers  only,  are  per- 
fectly safe ;  and  the  reason  assigned  is  the  sum  of  all  the  argu- 
ment from  the  commencement  of  the  epistle.  They  are  not 
under  the  law,  but  under  grace ;  the  law  of  the  Spirit  has  freed 
them  from  the  old  law  of  works.  5.  The  next  verse  favours, 
if  it  does  not  absolutely  demand,  this  interpretation.  It  gives 
the  reason  why  believers  are  thus  freed  from  the  law,  viz.  it 
was  insufiicient  for  their  salvation,  "  it  was  weak  through  the 
flesh."     6.  The  use  of  the  aorist  vjkso&ipMae,  which  shows  that 


ROMANS  YIII.  3.  395 

the  freedom  spoken  of  is  an  accomplished  fact,  confirms  this 
interpretation.  Deliverance  from  the  law  of  sin  in  the  members 
is  a  gradual  process ;  deliverance  from  the  law  is  effected  once 
for  all;  and  with  regard  to  the  believer,  it  is  a  fact  accom- 
plished. 

The  words  kv  Xpiartp,  in  Christ,  may  be  connected  with  the 
immediately  preceding  words  r^c  C^'^''5'^5  ^^'^  W^  which  is  in 
Christ;  or  with  6  p6/jto^  x.t.X.,  the  law  of  the  Spirit  which  is  in 
Christ.  As,  however,  the  connecting  article  (rij^c  or  6,)  which 
is  necessary  at  least  definitely  to  indicate  either  of  those  con- 
structions, is  wanting,  the  words  in  question  are  generally  con- 
nected with  the  following  verb,  /jhu&ipajae,  in  Christ  freed  me; 
that  is,  it  was  in  him,  and  therefore  through  him,  that  this 
deliverance  was  effected.  The  meaning  of  this  verse,  therefore, 
in  connection  with  the  preceding,  is,  '  There  is  no  condemnation 
to  those  who  are  in  Christ,  because  they  have  been  freed  in 
him  by  the  gospel  of  the  life-giving  Spirit,  from  that  law  which, 
although  good  in  itself,  is,  through  our  corruption,  the  source 
of  sin  and  death.'  Being  thus  free  from  the  curse  of  the  law, 
and  from  the  obligation  to  fulfil  its  demands,  as  the  condition 
of  life,  and  consequently  freed  from  a  legal  spirit,  their 
sins  are  gratuitously  pardoned  for  Christ's  sake ;  they  are 
made  partakers  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  are  transformed  more  and 
more  into  his  image,  and  God  is  pledged  to  preserve  them  unto 
eternal  life. 

Verse  3.  This  verse  is  connected  with  the  preceding  by  the 
particle  jdp,  for.  *  We  are  delivered  from  the  law,  for  the  law 
could  not  effect  our  salvation.'  The  words  rb  dduvarov  too 
vopou  may  be  rendered  either,  the  impotency  of  the  law,  or  what 
is  impossible  to  the  laiv.  The  choice  between  these  renderings 
depends  on  the  grammatical  structure  of  the  passage.  First, 
TO  dduvavov  may  be  taken  as  the  accusative,  and  the  preposition 
oca  be  supplied,  on  account  of  the  impotency  of  the  law;  or, 
secondly,  it  may  be  taken  as  the  accusative  absolute,  as  to  the 
impotency  of  the  law,  i.  e.  in  view  of  its  impotency ;  or,  thirdly, 
it  may  be  taken  as  the  nominative,  and  in  apposition  with  the 
following  clause.  The  sense  would  then  be,  '  The  impossibility 
of  the  law — God  condemned  sin ;'  i.  e.  the  condemnation  of  sin 
is  what  is  impossible  to  the  law.     This  is  the  view  commonly 


896  ROMANS  VIII.  3. 

adopted,  especially  by  those  who  understand  the  apostle  to  be 
speakmg  of  sanctification,  and  who  therefore  take  condemned 
sin  to  mean  destroyed  sin.  As,  however,  that  clause  does  not 
mean  to  destroy  sin,  but  judicially  to  condemn  it,  the  first 
clause  cannot  strictly  be  in  apposition  with  it.  The  law  could 
condemn  sin.  What  it  cannot  do  is  to  free  us  either  from  its 
guilt  or  power.  It  can  neither  justify  nor  sanctify.  On  this 
account,  the  second  exposition  of  the  first  clause  of  the  verse 
just  mentioned,  is  to  be  preferred :  '  In  view  of  the  impotency 
of  the  law,  God  sent  his  Son,'  &c.  This  insufficiency  of  the 
law,  as  the  apostle  had  taught  in  the  preceding  chapters,  is  not 
due  to  any  imperfection  of  the  law  itself.  It  is  holy,  just,  and 
good.  It  requires  nothing  more  than  is  right.  If  men  could 
comply  with  its  righteous  demands,  the  law  would  pronounce 
them  just.  If  they  were  free  from  the  infection  of  sin,  "the 
form  of  truth  and  knowledge  in  the  law,"  the  perfect  exhibition 
which  it  makes  of  the  will  of  God,  would  avail  to  maintain  and 
advance  them  in  holiness.  But  as  they  are  already  under  sin, 
under  its  guilt  and  power,  the  law  is  entirely  impotent  to  their 
justification  or  sanctification.  The  apostle  therefore  says,  that 
the  law  is  impotent,  iv  cu,  because  that  (see  Heb.  ii.  18)  it  is 
tveak  through  the  flesh,  oca  tyjq  aapxbz,  i.  e.  through  our  cor- 
ruption. It  is  our  being  depraved  that  renders  the  law  weak, 
or  impotent  to  s.avc  Grod  sending  (or  having  sent  Tik}npa(C) 
his  oivn  Son,  rbv  kauvou  vlou.  The  term  Son  here  evidently 
designates  the  eternal  personal  Son.  He  was  from  eternity, 
and  in  virtue  of  his  Divine  nature,  and  not  in  virtue  either  of 
his  miraculous  birth,  or  his  exaltation,  the  Son  of  God.  The 
greatness  of  the  work  to  be  accomplished,  and  the  greatness  of 
the  love  of  God  impelling  him  to  our  redemption,  are  strongly 
exhibited  in  these  words.  It  was  not  a  creature,  even  the  most 
exalted,  whom  God  sent  on  this  mission,  but  his  own  Son,  one 
with  him  in  essence  and  glory. 

Two  things  are  further  stated  concerning  this  mission  of  the 
Son  of  God.  First,  the  form  "under  which  he  appeared  in  the 
world;  and,  secondly,  the  object  for  which  he  was  sent.  As  to 
the  form  in  which  he  appeared,  it  was  in  the  likeness  of  sinful 
flesh.  It  was  not  simply  iu  aafixl  {in  the  flesh,)  clothed  in  our 
nature ;  for  that  might  have  been  said,  had  he  appeared  in  the 


ROMANS  VIII.  3.  397 

glorious,  impassive  nature  of  Adam  before  the  fall.  Much  less 
was  it  in  iu  aapyCt  kiiapxiac,  {in  sinful  flesh,)  for  that  would 
imply  that  his  human  nature  was  defiled,  contrary  to  Heb. 
iv.  15,  and  to  all  Scripture ;  but  it  was  iv  ofioeco/jLau  oapxbz 
d.p.apziaz,  (in  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh,)  that  is,  in  a  nature 
like  to  our  sinful  nature,  but  not  itself  sinful.  Christ  took  our 
physically  dilapidated  nature,  subject  to  the  infirmities  which 
sin  had  brought  into  it.  He  was  therefore  susceptible  of  pain, 
and  weariness,  and  sorrow.  He  could  be  touched  with  a  sense 
•of  our  infirmities.  He  was  tempted  in  all  points  as  we  are.  He 
is  therefore  a  merciful  and  trustworthy  High  Priest.  The 
object  for  which  God  sent  his  Son,  clothed  in  this  feeble,  suffer- 
ing nature  of  ours,  is  expressed  by  xac  Tzepi  b-papxiaz,  {and  for 
sin.)  This  may  mean  either  on  account  of  sin,  whether  for  its 
expiation  or  its  removal,  being  undetermined ;  or  it  may  be 
understood  in  a  sacrificial  sense.  Christ  Avas  sent  for  the  expia- 
tion of  sin,  or  as  a  sacrifice  for  sin.  1.  In  favour  of  this  is  the 
usus  loquendi,  as  nepi  6.papzia^  is  so  often  used  in  this  sense : 
see  Num.  viii.  8,  Ps.  xl.  7,  (in  the  LXX.  396,)  Lev.  vi.  25,  30, 
Heb.  x.  6,  8,  18,  xiii.  11.  Thus  also  in  Gal.  i.  4,  Christ  is  said 
to  have  given  himself  nepl  b-papruov  -fjpiov,  for,  i.  e.  as  a  sacri- 
fice for,  our  sins.  2.  The  analogy  of  Scripture,  as  it  is  so 
abundantly  taught  in  the  word  of  God,  is  that  Christ  was  sent  to 
make  expiation  for  sin,  to  wash  away  sin,  to  offer  himself  unto 
God  as  a  sacrifice  for  sin.  When,  therefore,  it  is  said  that  he 
was  sent  for  sin,  or  gave  himself  for  our  sins,  the  implication  is 
almost  unavoidable  that  the  meaning  is,  he  was  sent  as  a  sacri- 
fice for  sin.  3.  The  immediate  context  demands  this  interpre- 
tation ;  for  the  eff"ect  ascribed  to  this  sending  Christ  for  sin,  is 
that  which  is  due  to  a  sacrifice  or  expiation.  What  the  law 
could  not  do,  was  to  reconcile  us  unto  God.  It  was  in  view  of 
the  impotency  of  the  law  to  effect  the  salvation  of  sinners,  that 
God  sent  his  Son  to  make  expiation  for  their  offences,  and  thus 
bring  them  back  to  himself.  Me  thus  condemned  sin  in  the 
flesh;  that  is,  he  condemned  it  in  the  flesh,  or  nature,  which  his 
Son  had  assumed.  Christ  took  upon  himself  our  nature,  in 
order  to  expiate  the  guilt  of  that  nature.  The  expiation  must 
be  made  in  the  nature  wliich  had  sinned.  As  Christ,  the 
apostle  tells  us,  Heb.  ii.  14 — 18,  did  not  undertake  the  redemp- 


398  ROMANS  VIII.  3. 

tion  of  angels,  he  did  not  assume  their  nature,  but  took  part  in 
flesh  and  blood.  That  the  words  xarexptvs.  ttjv  hiapziav  [he 
condemned  sin,)  does  not  mean  that  he  destroyed  sin,  but  that 
he  punished  it,  visited  it  with  the  penalty  of  the  law,  is  evident. 

1.  Because  xazdxpcvco  never  means  to  destroy,  but  always  means 
to  condemn.  It  is  perfectly  arbitrary,  therefore,  to  depart 
from  the  ordinary  meaning  of  the  word  in  this  particular  place. 

2.  The  sacrifice  of  Christ  was  the  condemnation  of  sin.  That 
is,  he  bore  our  sins.  He  was  made  a  curse,  in  the  sense  that 
he  endured  the  curse  due  to  sin.  His  sufferings  were  penal,  as 
they  were  judicially  inflicted  in  satisfaction  of  justice.  The 
proximate  design  and  effect  of  a  sacrifice  is  expiation,  and  not 
reformation  or  inward  purification.  When  therefore  the  apostle 
speaks,  as  he  here  does,  of  what  God  did  by  sending  his  Son 
as  a  sacrifice  for  sin,  he  must  be  understood  to  speak  of  the 
sacrificial  effect  of  his  death.  3.  The  context  requires  this 
interpretation.  The  argument  of  the  apostle  is,  that  there  is 
no  xardpcfjia  [condemnation)  to  us,  because  God  xaripius  [con- 
demned) sin  in  Christ.  The  other  interpretation  supposes  him 
to  say,  that  there  is  no  condemnation  to  us,  because  sin  is 
destroyed  in  us.  That  is,  we  are  justified  on  the  ground  of  our 
own  inherent  goodness  or  freedom  from  sin.  But  this  is  con- 
trary to  the  Scriptures,  and  to  the  faith  of  the  Church.  "  Clare 
affirmat  Paulus,"  says  Calvin,  "ideo  expiata  fuisse  peccata 
Christi  morte,  quia  Legi  impossibile  erat,  justitiam  nobis  con- 
ferre."  The  apostle,  he  adds,  teaches,  "Legem  nihil  prorsus 
habere  momenti  ad  conferendam  justitiauK  Vides  ergo,  nos 
penitus  excludi  ab  operum  justitia:  ideoque  ad  Christi  justi- 
tiam nos  confugere,  quia  in  nobis  nulla  esse  potest.  Quod 
scitu  in  primis  necessarium  est;  quia  Christi  justitia  nonquam, 
vestiemur,  nisi  prius  certo  noverimus,  propriae  justitiae  nihil  nos 
habere."  In  saying,  however,  that  the  proximate  object  and 
effect  of  a  sacrifice  is  to  expiate  sin,  and  therefore  that  sin  is 
thereby  condemned  and  not  destroyed,  it  is  not  forgotten  that 
propitiation  is  the  end  of  expiation ;  that  our  sins  are  atoned 
for  by  the  blood  of  Christ,  in  order  to  our  being  restored  to  his 
image  and  favour.  Justification  is  not  on  account  of,  or  on  the 
ground  of  sanctification,  but  it  is  in  order  to  it ;  and  therefore 
the  two  are  inseparable.     The  justified  are  always  sanctified. 


ROMANS  VIII.  4.  399 

And  therefore,  so  far  as  the  meaning  is  concerned,  there  is  no 
objection  to  saying,  that  the  condemnation  of  sin  of  which  the 
apostle  here  speaks,  includes  the  idea  of  its  extirpation  or 
destruction  as  a  necessary  consequence.  But  it  is  nevertheless 
important,  not  only  to  a  due  understanding  of  his  argument, 
but  also  to  the  integrity  of  scriptural  doctrine,  to  remember 
that  the  condemation  of  sin  in  the  person  of  Christ,  expresses 
its  expiation  by  his  blood,  and  not  the  destruction  of  its  power 
in  us.  It  is  Christ  as  the  substitute  of  sinners,  bearing  the 
curse  for  them,  that  is  here  presented  to  our  view.  This  even 
Olshausen  admits,  who  says,  "The  conclusion  of  this  verse 
expresses  in  the  rnost  decisive  terms  the  vicarious  (stellvertre- 
tenden)  atoning  death  of  the  Saviour." 

Verse  4.  ^hat  the  righteousness  of  the  law  might  be  fulfilled 
in  us,  &c.  This  verse  expresses  the  design  of  God  in  sending 
his  Son,  and  in  condemning  sin  in  the  flesh.  He  did  thus  con- 
demn it,  7ua,  in  order  that  the  righteousness  of  the  law  might 
be  fulfilled.  The  meaning,  therefore,  of  this  passage  is  deter- 
mined by  the  view  taken  of  ver.  3.  If  that  verse  means,  that 
God,  by  sending  his  Son,  destroyed  sin  in  us,  then  of  course  this 
verse  must  mean,  '  He  destroyed  sin,  in  order  that  we  should 
fulfil  the  law;'  i.  e.  that  we  should  be  holy.  But  if  ver.  3  is 
understood  of  the  sacrificial  death  of  Christ,  and  of  the  con- 
demnation of  sin  in  him  as  the  substitute  of  sinners,  then  this 
verse  must  be  understood  of  justification,  and  not  of  sanctifica- 
tion.  He  condemned  sin,  in  order  that  the  demands  of  the  law 
might  be  satisfied.  This  is  the  view  of  the  passage  given  even 
by  the  majority  of  the  early  Fathers,  and  by  almost  all  evan- 
gelical interpreters,  including  the  Reformers.  "  Qui  intelligunt 
Spiritu  Christi  renovates  legem  implere,  commentum  a  sensu 
Pauli  penitus  alienum  afferunt ;  neque  enim  eo  usque  proficiunt 
fideles,  quamdia  peregrinantur  in  mundo,  ut  justificatio  legis  in 
illis  plena  sit,  vel  integra.  Ergo  hoc  ad  veniam  referre  necesse 
est;  quia,  dum  nobis  accepta  fertur  Christi  obedientia,  legi 
satisfactum  est,  ut  pro  justis  censeamur."  That  this  is  the  true 
meaning  of  the  passage  appears  not  only  from  the  connection 
and  the  course  of  the  argument,  but  also  from  the  following 
considerations :  1.  It  is  consistent  with  the  strict  and  natural 
meaning  of  the  words.     The  word  daacw/xa,  here  used,  means, 


400  ROMANS  VIII.  4. 

first,  something  righteous,  and  then,  second,  something  declared 
to  be  righteous  and  obligatory,  an  ordinance  or  precept ;  and, 
third,  a  righteous  decision,  a  just  judgment,  as  when  in  Rom. 
i.  29,  the  heathen  are  said  to  know  the  dcxaiwixa,  the  righteous 
judgment  of  God ;  and,  fourth,  the  act  of  declaring  righteous, 
justification.  In  this  sense  dcxaicoixa  is  antithetical  to  xazdxptfxa. 
The  drxauofia  zou  udjuou,  therefore,  may  mean,  the  righteous 
requirement  of  the  law,  that  which  satisfies  its  demands.  In 
Strict  accordance  therefore  with  the  sense  of  the  words,  we  may 
explain  the  passage  to  mean,  'that  the  demands  of  the  law 
might  be  satisfied  in  us.'  That  is,  that  we  might  be  justified. 
Christ  was  condemned,  that  to  us  there  might  be  no  condemna- 
tion. He  was  made  sin,  that  we  might  be  made  righteousness, 
2  Cor.  V.  21.  Or,  if  we  take  ocxaicona  in  the  sense  of  (Recht- 
fertigungsurtheil)  a  declaration  of  righteousness,  an  act  of  justi- 
fication, the  same  idea  is  expressed :  '  Sin  was  condemned  in 
Christ,  in  order  that  the  sentence  of  justification  might  be  ful- 
filled, or  carried  into  effect  in  us.'  This  is  the  explanation 
which  Eckermann,  Kbllner,  Philippi,  and  other  modern  inter- 
preters adopt.  2.  The  analogy  of  Scripture.  To  make  this 
passage  teach  the  doctrine  of  subjective  justification,  that  we 
are  freed  from  condemnation  or  delivered  from  the  law  by  our 
inward  sanctification,  is  to  contradict  the  plain  teaching  of  the 
Bible,  and  the  whole  drift  and  argument  of  this  epistle. 
3.  The  concluding  clause  of  the  verse,  (who  walk  not  after  the 
flesh,  &c.)  demands  the  interpretation  given  above.  In  the 
other  view  of  the  passage,  the  latter  clause  is  altogether  unne- 
cessary. Why  should  Paul  say,  that  Christ  died  in  order  that 
they  should  be  holy  who  are  holy,  i.  e.  those  who  walk  not  after 
the  flesh  ?  On  the  other  hand,  the  second  clause  of  the  verse 
is  specially  pertinent,  if  the  first  treats  of  justification.  The 
benefits  of  Christ's  death  are  experienced  only  by  those  who 
walk  not  after  the  flesh.  The  gospel  is  not  antinomian.  Those 
only  are  justified  who  are  also  sanctified.  Holiness  is  the  fruit 
and  evidence  of  reconciliation  with  God.  There  is  no  con- 
demnation to  those  who  walk  after  the  Spirit;  and  the  right- 
eousness of  the  law  is  fulfilled  by  those  who  walk  after  the 
Spirit.  In  both  cases,  the  latter  clause  is  designed  to  describe 
the  class  of  persons  who  are  entitled  to  appropriate  to  them- 


ROMANS  VIII.  5.  401 

selves  the  promise  of  justification  in  Christ.  4.  Finally,  as 
intimated  in  the  above  quotation  from  Calvin,  it  is  not  true  that 
the  righteousness  of  the  law,  in  the  sense  of  complete  obedience, 
is  fulfilled  in  believers.  The  interpretation  which  makes  the 
apostle  say,  that  we  are  delivered  from  the  law  by  the  work  of 
Christ,  in  order  that  the  complete  obedience  which  the  law 
demands  might  be  rendered  by  us,  supposes  what  all  Scripture 
and  experience  contradicts.  For  an  exposition  of  the  last 
clause  of  the  verse,  see  ver.  1. 

Verse  5.  For  they  that  are  after  the  flesh  do  mind  the  things 
of  the  flesh.  The  immediate  object  of  this  and  the  following 
verse  is  to  justify  the  necessity  of  limiting  the  blessings  of 
Christ's  death,  to  those  who  walk  not  after  the  flesh,  but  after 
the  Spirit.  The  for,  therefore,  connects  this  verse,  not  with 
the  main  idea,  but  with  the  last  clause  of  the  preceding.  Men 
must  be  holy,  because  sin  is  death,  whereas  holiness  is  life  and 
peace.  The  necessity  of  spirituality,  therefore,  lies  in  the  very 
nature  of  things. 

They  who  are  after  the  flesh,  those  who  are  in  the  flesh, 
the  carnal,  are  expressions  of  like  import,  and  describe  those 
who  are  governed  by  the  flesh,  or  by  their  nature  considered 
as  corrupt.  The  corresponding  series,  they  who  are  after  the 
Spi7'it,  who  are  in  the  Spirit,  the  spiritual,  describe  those  who 
are  under  the  government  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Of  the  former 
class  it  is  said  they  mind  the  things  of  the  flesh,  of  the  latter, 
they  mind  the  things  of  the  Spirit.  The  word  (ppovzlv  is  de- 
rived from  (fpijv,  which  is  used  for  the  seat  of  all  mental  affec- 
tions and  faculties,  and  therefore  (ppovio)  has  a  wide  meaning. 
It  expresses  any  form  of  mental  activity,  any  exercise  of  the 
intellect,  will,  or  affections.  They  mind,  {(ppovooacv,)  therefore, 
means,  they  make  the  object  of  attention,  desire,  and  pursuit. 
The  things  of  the  flesh,  are  the  objects  on  which  their  hearts  are 
set,  and  to  which  their  lives  are  devoted.  Things  of  the  flesh 
are  not  merely  sensual  things,  but  all  things  which  do  not 
belong  to  the  category  of  the  things  of  the  Spirit.  Compare 
Matt.  xvi.  23,  oi>  <ppouei^  zd  zou  deou,  thou  savourest  not  the 
things  of  God.  Phil.  iii.  19,  of  to.  Imy-Eca  (ppovouvzec;.  Col. 
iii.  2,  &c.  The  English  word  mind  is  used  with  much  the 
same. latitude.  The  idea  evidently  is,  that  the  objects  of  atten- 
26 


402  ROMANS  VIII.  6. 

tion,  desire,  and  pursuit,  to  the  carnal,  are  corrupt  and  worldly ; 
while  to  the  spiritual,  they  are  the  things  which  the  Spirit  pro- 
poses and  approves. 

Verse  6.  For  to  he  carnally  minded  is  death.  The  fdp 
here  is  by  many  taken  as  a  mere  particle  of  transition,  equiva- 
lent to  hut.  'But  to  be  carnally  minded  is  death.'  The  utter 
incompatibility  between  the  indulgence  of  sin  and  a  state  of 
salvation  is  thus  clearly  expressed.  It  is  impossible  that  justi- 
fication should  be  disconnected  with  sanctification,  because  a 
sinful  and  carnal  state  of  mind  is  death.  It  is  better,  however, 
to  take  ydp  in  its  usual  sense  of /or.  The  connection  may  then 
be  with  ver.  4,  so  that  verses  5  and  6  are  coordinate,  ver.  6 
presenting  an  additional  reason  why  believers  do  not  walk  after 
the  flesh.  They  do  not  thus  walk,  for  to  do  so  is  death.  Or, 
the  connection  is  with  ver.  5.  Justification  is  limited  to  the 
holy,  for  to  live  after  the  flesh  is  death.  The  phrase  ippovrjfxa 
Trj(;  (Tapx6<;  is  substantially  of  the  same  import  with  (ppovelv  za 
r^C  ffapx6(;,  the  minding  the  things  of  the  flesh.  It  is  thus 
active  in  its  signification.  It  is,  however,  more  in  accordance 
with  the  proper  signification  of  the  word  to  understand  it  as 
expressing  a  state  of  the  mind.  This  is  implied  in  the  English 
version,  to  he  carnally  minded.  The  idea  is  not  merely  that 
the  actual  seeking  the  things  of  the  flesh  leads  to  death ;  but 
that  a  carnal  state  of  mind,  which  reveals  itself  in  the  desire 
and  pursuit  of  carnal  objects,  is  death.  And  by  death  is  of 
course  meant  spiritual  death,  the  absence  and  the  opposite  of 
spiritual  life.  It  includes  alienation  from  God,  unholiness, 
and  misery.  On  the  other  hand,  the  cppov^pa  vou  rrveupazo^  is 
that  state  of  mind  which  is  produced  by  the  Spirit,  and  which 
reveals  itself  in  the  desire  and  pursuit  of  the  things  of  the 
Spirit.  This  state  of  mind  is  life  and  peace.  Therein  consists 
the  true  life  and  blessedness  of  the  soul.  This  being  the  case, 
there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  salvation  in  sin ;  no  possibility 
of  justification  without  sanctification.  If  partakers  of  the 
benefits  of  Christ's  death,  we  are  partakers  of  his  life.  If  we 
died  with  him,  we  live  with  him.  This  is  pertinent  to  the 
apostle's  main  object  in  this  chapter,  which  is  to  show  that 
believers  never  can  be  condemned.  They  are  not  only  de- 
livered from  the  law,  and  justified  by  the  blood  of  Christ,  but 


ROMANS  VIII.  7.  403 

they  are  partakers  of  his  life.     They  have  the  fpovrjfxa  rou 
TTVsujuaro^,  which  is  life  and  peace. 

Veksb  7.  Because  the  carnal  mind  is  enmity  against  God. 
This  is  the  reason  why  the  (ppovr^txa  rr^c,  aapxoz  is  death.  It  is 
in  its  nature  opposed  to  God,  who  is  the  life  of  the  soul.  His 
favour  is  life,  and  therefore  opposition  to  him  is  death.  The 
carnal  mind  is  enmity  to  God,  for  it  is  not  subject  to  the  law 
of  God,  The  law  of  God,  however,  is  the  revelation  of  his 
nature,  and  therefore  opposition  to  the  law,  is  opposition  to 
God.  This  opposition  on  the  part  of  the  carnal  mind  is  not 
casual,  occasional,  or  in  virtue  of  a  mere  purpose.  It  arises  out 
of  its  very  nature.  It  is  not  only  not  subject  to  the  law  of  God, 
but  it  cannot  he.  It  has  no  ability  to  change  itself.  Otherwise 
it  would  not  be  death.  It  is  precisely  because  of  this  utter 
impotency  of  the  carnal  mind,  or  unrenewed  heart,  to  change 
its  own  nature,  that  it  involves  the  hopelessness  which  the  word 
death  implies.  Compare  1  Cor.  ii.  14,  where  the  same  truth  is 
asserted:  "The  natural  man  receiveth  not  the  things  of  the 
Spirit  of  God — neither  can  he  know  them."  '■'-Nee  enim  potest. 
En,"  says  Calvin,  "liberi  arbitrii  facultas,  quam  satis  evehere 
sophistse  nequeunt.  Certe  Paulus  disertis  verbis  hie  affirmat 
quod  ipsi  pleno  ore  detestantur,  nobis  esse  impossibile  subjicere 
legis  obedientise.  .  .  .  Procul  igitur  sit  a  Christiano  pectore  ilia  de 
arbitrii  libertate  gentilis  philosophia.  Servum  peccati  se  quis- 
que,  ut  re  vera  est,  agnoscat,  quo  per  Christi  gratiam  manu 
missus  liberetur;  alia  libertate  prosus  stultum  est  gloriari." 
To  the  same  effect  the  modern  German  commentators,  whether 
mystic,  rationalistic,  or  evangelical.  "No  man,"  says  Plshau- 
sen,  "can  free  himself  from  himself:"  "Von  sich  selbst  kann 
sich  keiner  selbst  losmachen,  es  muss  eine  hohere  Liebe  kom- 
men,  die  ihn  meha  anzieht,  als  sein  Ich."  "The  will  itself  is 
fallen  away  from  God,"  says  Baumgarten-Crusius.  And  the 
evangelical  Philippi  says :  "  This  verse  is  a  strong  argument 
against  the  doctrine  of  the  so-called  liherum  arbitrium  of  the 
natural  m-an.  For  this  carnal  state  of  mind,  which  cannot  sub- 
ject itself  to  the  will  of  God,  is  not  produced  by  any  act  of 
man's  will,  nor  can  it  be  removed  by  any  such  act ;  it  consti- 
tutes, according  to  the  apostle's  doctrine,  the  original  nature 
of  man  in^its  present  or  fallen  state." 


404  ROMANS  VIII.  8,  9. 

Verse  8.  The  necessary  consequence  of  this  opposition  of  a 
mind  governed  by  the  flesh,  towards  God,  is  that  those  who  are 
in  this  state  are  the  objects  of  the  divine  displeasure.  So  then 
they  that  are  in  the  jiesh  cannot  please  Grod.  To  be  in  the 
■flesh,  as  before  remarked,  is  to  be  under  the  government  of 
the  Jlesh,  or  corrupt  nature,  to  be  destitute  of  the  grace  of  God. 
It  is  an  expression  applied  to  all  unrenewed  persons,  as  those 
who  are  not  in  the  jiesh  are  in  the  Spirit. 

Cannot  please  G-od.  ^Apsaxuv  rc'vi  generally  means  to  be 
pleasing,  or  acceptable  to  any  one ;  Matt.  xiv.  6,  1  Cor.  vii.  32, 
Gal.  i.  10,  1  Thess.  ii.  15.  Not  to  be  pleasing  to  God,  is  to  be 
the  objects  of  his  displeasure.  Enmity  towards  God  [i-^d-pa  ec<; 
6e6v)  has  as  its  necessary  consequence,  subjection  to  the  enmity 
of  God,  [iy^d-pa  dsou.)  The  apostle's  immediate  purpose  is  to 
show,  that  to  be  carnally  minded  is  death.  It  must  be  so,  for 
it  is  enmity  towards  God.  But  those  who  hate  God  are  the 
objects  of  his  displeasure;  and  to  be  the  objects  of  the  wrath 
of  God,  is  perdition.  Surely,  then,  to  be  carnally  minded  is 
death.  In  vs.  9 — 11,  the  apostle  applies  to  his  readers  what 
he  had  just  said,  and  shows  how  it  is  that  {(pp6v7jp.a  tou 
7:vz6ixaTO<;,)  to  be  spiritually  minded,  is  life  and  peace. 

Verse  9.  But  ye  are  not  in  the  flesh,  hut  in  the  Spirit, 
i.  e.  ye  are  not  carnal,  but  spiritual.  The  Spirit,  so  to  speak, 
is  the  element  in  which  you  live.  Such  the  Roman  Christians 
were  by  profession  and  by  repute,  for  their  faith  was  spoken 
of  throughout  the  world.  Their  real  character,  however,  was 
not  determined  either  by  their  professions  or  their  reputation. 
The  apostle  therefore  adds,  if  so  he  the  Spirit  of  Gfod  dwell  in 
you.  This  is  the  only  decisive  test.  Every  other  bond  of  union 
with  Christ  is  of  no  avail  without  this.  We  may  be  members 
of  his  Church,  and  united  to  him  by  being  included  in  the 
number  of  his  people,  yet  -unless  we  are  partakers  of  that  vital 
union  which  arises  from  the  indwelling  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  we 
are  his  only  in  name.  Our  version  gives  ecTrep  [if  so  he)  its 
ordinary  and  proper  sense.  ^'EcTcsp,"  says  Hermann  ad  Viger, 
§  310,  "usurpatur  de  re,  quae  esse  sumitur,  sed  in  incerto  relin- 
quitur,  utrum  jure  an  injuria  sumatur;  el'ys  autem  de  re,  quae 
jure  sumta  creditur."  Sometimes,  however,  ecTtsp  has  the  same 
force  as  ec'ys  {since);  as,  2  Thess.  i.  6,  ^'•seeing  it  is  a  righteous 


ROMANS  VIII.  10.  405 

thing  with  God."  The  ordinary  sense  of  the  particle,  however, 
is  better  suited  to  this  passage.  The  Spirit  of  God  is  every- 
where ;  yet  he  is  said  to  dwell  wherever  he  specially  and  per- 
manently manifests  his  presence.  Thus  he  is  said  to  dwell  in 
heaven :  he  dwelt  of  old  in  the  temple ;  he  now  dwells  in  the 
Church,  which  is  a  habitation  of  God  through  the  Spirit,  Eph. 
ii.  22 ;  and  he  dwells  in  each  individual  believer  whose  body  is 
a  temple  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  1  Cor.  vi.  19.  Compare  John  xiv.  19, 
1  Cor.  iii.  16,  2  Cor.  vi.  16,  2  Tim.  i.  16,  &c.  Now  if  any  man 
have  not  the  SiHrit  of  Christ.  It  is  obvious  that  the  Spirit  of 
Christ  is  identical  with  the  Spirit  of  God.  The  one  expression 
is  interchanged  with  the  other :  '  If  the  Spirit  of  God  dwell  in 
you,  you  are  true  Christians ;  for  if  the  Spirit  of  Christ  be  not 
in  you,  you  are  none  of  his.'  This  is  the  reasoning  of  the 
apostle.  "Spirit  of  Christ,"  therefore,  can  no  more  mean  the 
temper  or  disposition  of  Christ,  than  "Spirit  of  God"  can  mean 
the  disposition  of  God.  Both  expressions  designate  the  Holy 
Ghost,  the  third  person  in  the  adorable  Trinity.  The  Holy 
Spirit  is  elsewhere  called  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  Gal.  iv.  16,  Phil, 
i.  19,  1  Pet.  i.  11.  Whatever  the  genitive  expresses  in  the  one 
case,  it  does  in  the  other.  He  is  of  the  Spirit  of  Christ  in  the 
same  sense  in  which  he  is  the  Spirit  of  God.  In  other  words, 
the  Spirit  stands  in  the  same  relation  to  the  second,  that  he 
does  to  the  first  person  of  the  Trinity.  This  was  one  of  the 
points  of  controversy  between  the  Greek  and  Latin  Churches ; 
the  latter  insisting  on  inserting  in  that  clause  of  the  Creed 
which  speaks  of  the  procession  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  words 
"filioque,"  [and  from  the  Son.)  For  this  the  gratitude  of  all 
Christians  is  due  to  the  Latin  Church,  as  it  vindicates  the  full 
equality  of  the  Son  with  the  Father.  No  clearer  assertion,  and 
no  higher  exhibition  of  the  Godhead  of  the  Son  can  be  con- 
ceived, than  that  which  presents  him  as  the  source  and  the 
possessor  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  Spirit  proceeds  from,  and 
belongs  to  him,  and  by  him  is  given  to  whomsoever  he  wills. 
John  i.  83,  xv.  26,  xvi.  7,  Luke  xxiv.  29,  &c. 

Verse  10.  And  if,  or  rather,  hut  if  [d  Si)  Christ  be  in  you. 
'  If  a  man  have  not  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  he  is  none  of  his ;  hut 
if  Christ  be  in  him,  he  is  partaker  of  his  life. '  From  this  inter- 
change of  expression  it  is  plain  that  to  say  that  the  Spirit  of 


406  ROMANS  VIII.  10. 

Christ  dwells  in  us,  and  to  say  that  Christ  dwells  in  us,  is  the 
same  thing.  And  as  the  foi-mer  phrase  is  interchanged  with 
Spirit  of  God,  and  that  again  elsewhere  with  God,  it  follows, 
that  to  say,  God  dwells  in  us,  the  Spirit  of  God  dwells  in  us, 
Christ  dwells  in  us,  and  the  Spirit  of  Christ  dwells  in  us,  are 
only  different  ways  of  expressing  the  same  thing.  "  Qui  Spi- 
ritum  hahet,  Christum  habet;  qui  Christum  habet,  Deum 
habet."  Bengel.  This  scriptural  usage  finds  its  explanation  in 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  While  there  is  one  only,  the  living 
and  true  God;  yet  as  there  are  three  persons  in  the  Godhead, 
and  as  these  three  are  the  same  in  substance,  it  follows,  that 
where  the  Father  is,  there  the  Son  is,  and  where  the  Son  is, 
there  is  the  Spirit.  Hence  our  Lord  says,  "  If  any  man  love 
me,  he  Avill  keep  my  words,  and  my  Father  will  love  him,  and 
we  will  come  unto  him,  and  make  our  abode  with  him."  John 
xiv.  23.  And  the  apostle  John  says,  "Whosoever  shall  confess 
that  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God,  God  dwelleth  in  him,  and  he  in 
God."  1  John  iii.  15.  "I  and  my  Father,"  says  Christ,  "are 
one."  He  therefore  who  hath  the  Son,  hath  the  Father  also. 
There  is  another  familiar  scriptural  usage  illustrated  in  this 
verse.  Christ  is  properly  an  official  designation  of  the  Thean- 
thropos,  as  the  anointed  Prophet,  Priest,  and  King  of  his 
people.  It  is  however  used  as  a  personal  designation,  and  is 
applied  to  our  Lord,  as  well  in  reference  to  his  human  as  to  his 
divine  nature.  Hence  the  Bible  says  indifferently,  Christ  died, 
and  that  he  created  all  things.  In  this  and  other  passages, 
therefore,  when  Christ  is  said  to  dwell  in  us,  it  is  not  Christ  as 
man,  nor  Christ  as  the  Theanthropos,  but  Christ  as  God. 
Compare  2  Cor.  xiii.  5,  "  Know  ye  not  that  Jesus  Christ  is  in 
you."  His  indwelling  in  his  people  is  as  much  a  function  of 
his  divine  nature,  as  his  creating  and  upholding  all  things  by 
the  word  of  his  power. 

And  if  Christ  (be)  in  you,  the  body  is  dead  because  of  sin,  &c. 
As  this  verse  is  antithetical  to  the  preceding,  3e  should  be  ren- 
dered but:  'If  any  man  have  not  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  he  is 
none  of  his ;  but  if  Christ  be  in  you,  although  the  body  must 
die  on  account  of  sin,  the  spirit  shall  live  because  of  righteous- 
ness.' The  Spirit  is  the  source  of  life,  and  wherever  he  dwells, 
there  is  life. 


KOMANS  VIII.  10.  407 

The  body  indeed  is  dead.,  to  jihv  oiTjfxa  vtxpov.  That  aMfta 
here  is  to  be  taken  in  its  hteral  sense  is  plain,  because  such  is 
the  proper  meaning  of  the  word.  It  is  rarely,  if  at  all,  used  in 
the  figurative  sense  in  which  adp^  (fl^sh)  so  often  occurs.  This 
interpretation  also  is  required  by  the  antithesis  between  body 
and  spirit,  in  this  verse.  The  context  also  demands  this  view 
of  the  passage,  both  because  of  the  reference  to  the  resurrec- 
tion of  Christ,  which  was  of  course  literal,  and  because  in  the 
next  verse  we  have  the  phrase  "mortal  bodies,"  which  does  not 
admit  of  a  figurative  interpretation.  The  sense  also  afi"orded 
by  the  literal  meaning  of  the  word  is  so  natural,  and  so  suited 
to  the  context,  as  to  preclude  the  necessity  of  seeking  for  any 
other.  In  this  view  the  majority  of  commentators  concur. 
Others,  however,  understand  by  aco/uia,  the  corrupt  nature,  or 
the  whole  nature  of  man,  his  soul  and  body,  as  distinguished 
from  the  Spirit  as  the  principle  of  divine  life.  The  word  vtxpbv 
is  made  to  mean  uevexpco/iiuou,  ^^m^  to  death,  mortified;  and  de 
d-ixapTiav,  on  account  of  sin,  is  made  equivalent  to  zrj  d/jtapua, 
as  to  sin.  This  evidently  does  unnecessary  violence  to  the 
literal  meaning  of  the  words.  The  body  is  dead  in  the  sense 
that  it  is  not  only  obnoxious  to  death,  but  as  it  is  already  the 
seat  of  death.  It  includes  in  it  the  principle  of  decay.  This 
necessity  of  dying  is  on  account  of  sm.  It  is  not  inconsistent 
with  the  perfection  of  the  redemption  of  Christ,  that  its  benefits 
are  not  received  in  their  fulness  the  moment  we  believe.  We 
remain  subject  to  the  pains,  the  sorrows,  the  trials  of  life,  and 
the  necessity  of  dying,  although  partakers  of  the  life  of  which 
he  is  the  author.  That  life  which  is  imparted  in  regeneration, 
is  gradually  developed  until  it  has  its  full  consummation  at  the 
resurrection. 

The  spirit  is  life  because  of  righteousness.  By  spirit  here, 
is  not  to  be  understood  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  the  human  spirit, 
because  it  stands  opposed  to  body  in  the  former  clause.  The 
body  is  dead,  but  the  sp>irit  is  life.  It  should  not  therefore  be 
printed  with  a  capital  S,  as  in  the  ordinary  copies  of  the  Eng- 
lish version.  The  sense  in  which  the  spirit  is  life,  is  antithetical 
to  that  in  which  the  body  is  dead.  As  the  body  is  infected  with 
a  principle  of  decay  which  renders  its  dissolution  inevitable,  so 
the  soul,  in  which  the  Holy  Spirit  dwells,  is  possessed  of  a 


408  ROMANS  VIII.  11. 

principle  of  life  which  secures  its  immortal  and  blessed  exist- 
ence. Because  of  righteousness;  ouacoauv/j,  as  opposed  to 
iLfxapria,  must'  be  taken  in  its  subjective  sense.  It  is  inward 
righteousness  or  holiness,  of  which  the  apostle  here  speaks,  and 
not  our  justifying  righteousness.  It  is  because  the  Holy  Ghost, 
as  dwelling  in  believers,  is  the  source  of  holiness,  that  he  is  the 
source  of  life.  The  life  of  which  he  is  the  author,  is  the  life 
of  God  in  the  soul,  and  is  at  once  the  necessary  condition  and 
the  effect  of  the  enjoyment  of  his  fellowship  and  favour.  We 
shall  continue  in  the  enjoyment  of  the  life  just  spoken  of, 
because  the  principles  of  this  new  and  immortal  existence  are 
implanted  within  us.  Regeneration  is  the  commencement  of 
eternal  life.  The  present  possession  of  the  Spirit  is  an  earnest 
of  the  unsearchable  riches  of  Christ,  Eph.  i.  14.  In  this  view 
the  verse  is  directly  connected  Avith  the  main  object  of  the 
chapter,  viz.  the  security  of  all  who  are  in  Christ  Jesus.  To 
such  there  is  no  condemnation,  because  they  have  been  freed 
from  the  law  which  condemned  them  to  death ;  and  because  the 
work  of  salvation  is  already  begun  in  them.  They  have  eternal 
life,  John  vi.  47. 

Verse  11.  But  if  the  Spirit  of  him  that  raised  up  Jesus  from 
the  dead  dwell  in  you.  Such  periphrases  for  Giod  as  that  which 
this  verse  contains,  are  very  common  with  the  apostle,  (see 
Rom.  iv.  24,  &c.,)  and  are  peculiarly  appropriate  when  the  force 
of  the  argument  in  some  measure  rests  on  the  fact  to  which  the 
descriptive  phrase  refers.  Because  God  had  raised  up  Christ, 
there  was  ground  of  confidence  that  he  would  raise  his  people 
up  also.  Two  ideas  may  be  included  in  this  part  of  the  verse : 
first,  that  the  very  possession  of  that  Spirit,  which  is  the  source 
of  life,  is  a  pledge  and  security  that  our  bodies  shall  rise  again ; 
because  it  would  be  unseemly  that  anything  thus  honoured  by 
the  Spirit,  should  remain  under  the  dominion  of  death;  and, 
secondly,  that  the  resurrection  of  Christ  secures  the  resurrec- 
tion of  those  that  are  his,  according  to  Paul's  doctrine  in 
1  Cor.  XV.  23.  The  argument  of  the  apostle  is,  that  the  same 
Spirit  which  was  in  Christ,  and  raised  him  from  the  dead, 
dwells  in  us,  even  in  our  bodies,  (1  Cor.  vi.  19,)  and  will 
assuredly  raise  us  up. 

He  that  raised  up  Christ  from  the  dead  shall  also  quicken 


ROMANS  VIII.  11.  409 

your  mortal  bodies.  This  clause  cannot,  with  any  regard  to 
usace  or  the  context,  be  understood  of  a  moral  resurrection,  or 
deliverance  from  sin,  as  it  is  explained  by  Calvin  and  many 
others.  See  the  analogous  passage,  2  Cor.  iv.  14.  The  apostle 
designs  to  show  that  the  life  which  we  derive  from  Christ,  shall 
ultimately  effect  a  complete  triumph  over  death.  It  is  true  that 
our  present  bodies  must  die,  but  they  are  not  to  continue  under 
the  power  of  death.  The  same  Spirit  which  raised  Christ's 
body  from  the  grave,  shall  also  quicken  our  mortal  bodies. 
The  word  is  not  iyecpel,  but  !^a)07roirj<T£c,  which  imports  more 
than  a  mere  restoration  of  life.  It  is  used  only  of  believ-ers.  It 
expresses  the  idea  of  the  communication  of  that  life  of  which 
Christ  is  the  author  and  the  source.  And  this  life,  so  far  as 
the  body  is  concerned,  secures  its  conformity  to  the  glorious 
body  of  the  risen  Son  of  God. 

By  his  Spirit  that  divclleth  in  you,  or,  as  it  must  be  rendered 
according  to  another  reading,  "  On  account  of  his  Spirit  that 
dwelleth  in  you.''  For  the  reading  dca  to  ivocxouv  ahrou  Ttvtuiia, 
Wetstein  quotes  the  MSS.  D.  E.  F.  G.  and  many  of  the  more 
modern  MSS.,  together  with  the  Syriac  and  Latin  versions, 
and  several  of  the  Fathers.  This  reading  is  adopted  by  Eras- 
mus, Stephens,  Mill,  Bengel,  Griesbach,  and  Knapp.  For  the 
reading  dca  too  iuoaouuTOi;,  x.t.X.,  are  quoted  the  MSS.  A.  10. 
22.  34.  38.  39.,  the  editions  of  Colinaeus,  Beza,  the  Compluten- 
sian,  and  many  of  the  Fathers.  Lachmann  and  Tischendorf 
retain  the  common  text.  This  passage  is  of  interest,  as  the 
reading  kvocxoovroi;  was  strenuously  insisted  on  in  the  Macedo- 
nian controversy  respecting  the  personality  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
The  orthodox  Fathers  contended,  that  as  the  genitive  was 
found  in  the  most  ancient  copies  of  the  Scriptures  then  extant, 
it  should  be  retained.  If  the  dead  are  raised  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,  then  the  Holy  Ghost  is  of  the  same  essence  with  the 
Father  and  the  Son,  to  whom,  elsewhere,  the  resurrection  of 
the  dead  is  referred.  This  argument  is  valid,  and,  other  things 
being  equal,  is  a  good  reason  for  retaining  the  common  text. 
The  sense,  however,  is  in  either  case  substantially  the  same. 
According  to  the  former,  the  meaning  is,  that  the  resurrection 
of  believers  will  be  effected  by  the  power  of  the  Spirit  of  God; 


410  ROMANS  VIII.  11. 

and  according  to  the  latter,  that  the  indwelling  of  the  Spirit  is 
the  ground  or  reason  why  the  bodies  of  believers  should  not 
be  left  in  the  grave.  The  internal  evidence  is  decidedly  in 
favour  of  the  former  reading :  1.  Because  Paul  uses  precisely 
these  words  elsewhere,  "By  the  Holy  Spirit,"  &c.,  1  Tim. 
i.  14,  &c.  2.  Because  throughout  the  Scriptures  in  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments,  what  God  does  in  nature  or  grace,  he  is 
said  to  do  by  his  Spirit.  Passages  are  too  numerous  and  too 
familiar  to  be  cited.  3.  Because  the  Jews  seem  to  have 
referred  the  resurrection  of  the  body  specially  to  the  Holy 
Ghost.*  As  the  external  authorities  are  nearly  equally  divided, 
the  case  must  be  considered  doubtful.  If  the  latter  reading  be 
adj3pted,  this  clause  would  then  answer  to  the  phrase,  on  account 
of  righteousness,  in  the  preceding  verse.  '  On  account  of  the 
indwelling  of  the  Spirit,'  expressing  the  same  general  idea 
under  another  foi-m.  Our  souls  shall  live  in  happiness  and 
glory,  because  they  are  renewed ;  and  our  bodies  too  shall  be 
raised  up  in  glory,  because  they  are  the  temples  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  In  the  widest  sense  then  it  is  true,  that  to  be  in  the 
Spirit,  is  to  be  secure  of  life  and  peace. 

It  will  be  remarked,  that  in  this  verse,  and  elsewhere,  God 
is  said  to  have  raised  up  Christ  from  the  dead,  whereas,  in 
John  X.  17,  18,  the  Saviour  claims  for  himself  the  power  of 
resuming  his  life.  So  here  (according  to  the  common  reading) 
we  are  said  to  be  raised  up  by  the  Holy  Spirit ;  in  John  vi.  40, 
Christ  says  of  the  believer,  "/  will  raise  him  up  at  the  last 
day;"  and  in  2  Cor.  iv.  14,  and  in  many  other  places,  the 
resurrection  of  believers  is  ascribed  to  God.  These  passages 
belong  to  that  numerous  class  of  texts,  in  which  the  same 
work  is  attributed  to  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy 
Spirit,  and  which,  in  connection  with  other  sources  of  proof, 
show  conclusively  that  "these  three  are  one;"  and  that  the 
persons  of  the  Adorable  Trinity  concur  in  all  works  ad 
extra. 

*  Wetstein  quotes  such  passages  as  the  following,  from  the  Jewish  writers : 
"Tempore  futuro  Spiritus  meus  vivificabit  tos."  "Spiritus  Sanctus  est 
causa  resurrectionis  mortuorum,"  &c. 


ROMANS  VIII.  1—11.  411 

DOCTRINE. 

1.  As  the  former  part  of  this  chapter  is  an  inference  from 
the  previous  discussion,  and  presents  a  summary  of  the  great 
truths  already  taught,  we  find  here  united  the  leading  doctrines 
of  the  first  portion  of  the  epistle.  For  example,  justification  is 
by  faith,  ver.  1;  believers  are  not  under  the  law,  ver.  2;  the 
law  is  insufficient  for  our  justification ;  God  has  accomplished 
that  object  by  the  sacrifice  of  his  Son,  vs.  3,  4 ;  and  this  bless- 
ing is  never  disconnected  with  a  holy  life,  ver.  4. 

2.  The  final  salvation  of  those  who  are  really  united  to 
Christ,  and  who  show  the  reality  of  their  union  by  good  works, 
is  secure.  This  is  the  doctrine  of  the  whole  chapter.  This 
section  contains  two  of  the  apostle's  arguments  in  its  support. 
1.  They  are  free  from  the  law  which  condemned  them  to  death, 
vs.  2 — 4.  2.  They  are  partakers  of  that  Spirit  which  is  the 
author  and  earnest  of  eternal  life,  vs.  5 — 11. 

3.  Jesus  Christ  is  truly  divine.  He  is  "  God's  own  Son," 
i.  e.  partaker  of  his  nature.  The  Holy  Ghost  is  his  Spirit,  and 
he  dwells  in  all  believers,  vs.  3,  11. 

4.  Jesus  Christ  is  truly  a  man.  He  came  in  the  likeness  of 
men,  ver.  3. 

5.  Christ  was  a  sacrifice  for  sin,  and  his  sufferings  were 
penal,  i.  e.  they  were  judicially  inflicted  in  support  of  the  law. 
'God  punished  sin  in  him,'  ver.  3. 

6.  The  justification  of  believers  involves  a  fulfilling  of  the 
law;  its  demands  are  not  set  aside,  ver.  4. 

7.  Everything  in  the  Bible  is  opposed  to  antinomianism. 
Paul  teaches  that  justification  and  sanctification  cannot  be  dis- 
joined. No  one  is,  or  can  be  in  the  favour  of  God,  who  lives 
after  the  flesh,  vs.  5 — 11. 

8.  The  necessity  of  holiness  arises  out  of  the  very  nature  of 
things.  Sin  is  death,  whereas  holiness  is  life  and  peace.  God 
has  made  the  connection  between  sin  and  misery,  holiness  and 
happiness,  necessary  and  immutable,  ver.  6.  The  fact  that 
holy  men  suffer,  and  that  even  the  perfect  Saviour  was  a  man 
of  sorrows,  is  not  inconsistent  with  this  doctrine.  Such  suffer- 
ings never  proceed  from  holiness.  On  the  contrary,  the  Divine 
Spirit  was,  and  is  a  wellspring  within  of  joy  and  peace,  to  all 


412  ROMANS  VIII.  1—11. 

who  are  sanctified.  In  itself  considered,  therefore,  moral 
purity  is  essentially  connected  with  happiness,  as  cause  and 
eflfect. 

9.  All  unrenewed  men,  that  is,  all  "who  are  in  the  flesh," 
are  at  once  the  enemies  of  God,  and  the  objects  of  his  dis- 
pleasure. Their  habitual  and  characteristic  state  of  mind,  that 
state  which  every  man  has  who  is  not  "in  the  Spirit,"  is 
enmity  to  God,  and  consequently  is  the  object  of  his  disappro- 
bation, vs.  6,  8. 

10.  The  Holy  Ghost  is  the  source  of  all  good  in  man.  Those 
who  are  destitute  of  his  influences,  are  not  subject  to  the  law 
of  God,  neither  indeed  can  be ;  for  no  man  can  call  Jesus  Lord, 
that  is,  can  really  recognise  his  authority,  but  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,  vs.  5 — 8. 

11.  Death,  and  the  other  evils  to  which  believers  are 
exposed,  are  on  account  of  sin,  ver.  10.  They  are  no  longer, 
however,  the  evidences  of  God's  displeasure,  but  of  his  parental 
love,  Heb.  xii.  6. 

12.  The  redemption  of  Christ  extends  to  the  bodies  as  well 
as  the  souls  of  his  people,  ver.  11. 

REMARKS. 

1.  There  can  be  no  safety,  no  holiness,  and  no  happiness  to 
those  who  are  out  of  Christ.  No  safety,  because  all  such  are 
under  the  condemnation'  of  the  law,  vs.  1 — 3 ;  no  holiness, 
because  only  such  as  are  united  to  Christ  have  the  Spirit  of 
Christ,  ver.  9;  and  no  happiness,  because  "to  be  carnally 
minded  is  death,"  ver.  6.  Hence  those  who  are  in  Christ, 
should  be  very  humble,  seeing  they  are  nothing,  and  he  is 
everything ;  very  grateful,  and  very  holy.  And  those  who  are 
out  of  Christ,  should  at  once  go  to  him,  that  they  may  attain 
safety,  holiness,  and  happiness. 

2.  The  liberty  wherewith  Christ  has  made  his  people  free,  is 
a  liberty  from  the  law  and  from  sin,  vs.  2,  5.  A  legal  spirit, 
and  an  unholy  life,  are  alike  inconsistent  with  the  Christian 
character. 

3.  Believers  should  be  joyful  and  confident,  for  the  law  is 
fulfilled;  its  demands  are  satisfied  as  respects  them.  Who  then 
can  condemn,  if  God  has  justified  ?  ver.  4. 


ROMANS  VIII.  12—28.  413 

4.  There  can  be  no  rational  or  scriptural  hope  without  holi- 
ness, and  every  tendency  to  separate  the  evidence  of  the  divine 
favour  from  the  evidence  of  true  piety,  is  anti-Christian  and 
destructive,  vs.  4 — 8. 

5.  The  bent  of  the  thoughts,  affections,  and  pursuits,  is  the 
only  decisive  test  of  character.  "  They  who  are  after  the  flesh 
do  mind  the  things  of  the  flesh,"  &c.,  ver.  5.  . 

6.  It  is  therefore  a  sure  mark  of  hypocrisy,  if  a  man  who  pro- 
fesses to  be  a  Christian,  still  minds  earthly  things,  that  is,  has  his 
affections  and  efforts  supremely  directed  towards  worldly  objects. 

7.  We  may  as  well  attempt  to  wring  pleasure  out  of  pain, 
as  to  unite  the  indulgence  of  sin  with  the  enjoyment  of  happi- 
ness, vs.  6,  7. 

8.  How  blinded  must  those  be,  who,  although  at  enmity  with 
God,  and  the  objects  of  his  displeasure,  are  sensible  neither  of 
their  guilt  nor  danger !  vs.  7,  8. 

9.  The  great  distinction  of  a  true  Christian,  is  the  indwell- 
ing of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Hence  his  dignity,  holiness,  and  hap- 
piness, vs.  9 — 11. 

10.  If  the  Spirit  of  God  dwells  in  the  Christian,  how  careful 
should  he  be,  lest  anything  in  his  thoughts  or  feelings  would  be 
offensive  to  this  divine  guest ! 

11.  Christians  are  bound  to  reverence  their  bodies,  and  pre- 
serve them  from  all  defilement,  because  they  are  the  members 
of  Christ,  and  the  temples  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  ver.  11. 

ROMANS  VIII.  12—28. 

ANALYSIS. 

This  section*  contains  two  additional  arguments  in  support 
of  the  great  theme  of  the  chapter — the  safety  of  all  who  are  in 

*  It  was  remarked  above,  that  the  division  of  this  chapter  into  sections  is 
merely  arbitrary.  For,  although  there  are  several  very  distinct  topics  intro- 
duced, yet  the  whole  is  intimately  interwoven  and  made  to  bear  on  one  point. 
In  passing,  too,  from  one  argument  to  another,  the  apostle  does  it  so  naturally, 
that  there  is  no  abruptness  of  transition.  The  connection,  therefore,  between 
the  last  verse  of  the  preceding  section  and  the  first  verse  of  this,  and  between 
the  last  of  this  and  the  first  of  the  following,  is  exceedingly  intimate.  It  is 
only  for  the  sake  of  convenient  resting  places  for  review,  that  the  division 
is  made. 


414  ROMANS  VIII.  12—28. 

Christ.  The  first  is  derived  from  their  adoption,  vs.  12 — 17, 
and  the  second  from  the  fact  that  they  are  sustained  by  hope, 
and  aided  by  the  Spirit,  under  all  their  trials ;  so  that  every- 
thing eventually  works  together  for  their  good,  vs.  18 — 28. 

Paul  had  just  shown  that  believers  were  distinguished  by  the 
indwelling  of  the  Spirit.  Hence  he  infers  the  obligation  to  live 
according  to  the  Spirit,  and  to  mortify  the  deeds  of  the  body, 
ver.  12.  If  they  did  this,  they  should  live,  ver.  13.  Not  only 
because,  as  previously  argued,  the  Spirit  is  the  source  of  life, 
but  also  because  all  who  are  led  by  the  Spirit  are  the  children 
of  God.  This  is  a  new  ground  of  security,  ver.  14.  The  reality 
of  their  adoption  is  proved,  first,  by  their  own  filial  feelings; 
as  God's  relation  and  feelings  towards  us  are  always  the  coun- 
terpart of  ours  towards  him,  ver.  15.  Secondly,  by  the  testi- 
mony of  the  Spirit  itself  with  our  spirits,  ver.  16.  If  children, 
the  inference  is  plain  that  believers  shall  be  saved,  for  they  are 
heirs.  Salvation  follows  adoption,  as,  among  men,  heirship  does 
sonship.     They  are  joint  heirs  with  Jesus  Christ,  ver.  17. 

It  is  nowise  inconsistent  with  their  filial  relation  to  God,  nor 
with  their  safety,  that  believers  are  allowed  to  suffer  in  this 
world:  1.  Because  these  sufferings  are  comparatively  insignifi- 
cant, vs.  18 — 23.  2.  Because  they  are  sustained  by  hope. 
3.  Because  the  Spirit  itself  intercedes  for  them.  In  amplifying 
the  first  of  these  considerations,  the  cqpaparative  insignificancy 
of  the  sufferings  of  this  present  state,  the  apostle  presents  in 
contrast  the  unspeakable  blessedness  and  glory  which  are  in 
reserve  for  believers,  ver.  18.  To  elevate  our  conceptions  of 
this  glory,  he  represents :  1.  The  whole  creation  as  looking  and 
longing  for  its  full  manifestation,  ver.  19,  &c.  2.  All  those  who 
have  now  a  foretaste  of  this  blessedness,  or  the  first  fruits  of 
the  Spirit,  as  joining  in  this  sense  of  present  wretchedness,  and 
earnest  desire  of  the  future  good,  ver,  23. 

These  afflictions,  then,  are  not  only  thus  comparatively  light 
in  themselves,  but  they  are  made  still  more  tolerable  by  the 
constant  and  elevating  anticipation  of  the  future  inheritance 
of  the  saints,  vs.  24,  25.  And  not  only  so,  but  the  Spirit 
also  sustains  us  by  his  intercessions,  thus  securing  for  us 
all  the  good  we  need,  vs.  26 — 28.  The  salvation,  then,  of 
believers  is  secure,  notwithstanding  their  sufferings,  inasmuch 


ROMANS  VIII.  12,  13.  415 

as  they  are  children,  and  are  sustained  and  aided  by  the  Holy 
Spirit. 

COMMENTARY. 

Verse  12.  Therefore^  brethren^  we  are  debtors,  not  to  the 
flesh,  to  live  after  the  flesh.  We  have  here  an  example  of  what 
the  rhetoricians  call  meiosis,  where  less  is  said  than  is  intended. 
So  far  from  being  debtors  to  the  flesh,  the  very  reverse  is  the 
case.  This  passage  is  an  inference  from  the  exhibition  of  the 
nature  and  tendency  of  the  flesh,  or  the  carnal  mind,  as  hostile 
to  God,  and  destructive  to  ourselves,  vs.  5,  8.  As  this  is  its 
nature,  and  believers  are  no  longer  in  the  flesh,  but  in  the 
Spirit,  they  are  under  the  strongest  obligations  not  to  live  after 
the  one,  but  after  the  other.  We  are  debtors;  d<pediTac  ia/ukv. 
We  are  the  debtors,  not  of  the  flesh,  but,  as  the  implication  is, 
of  the  Spirit.  Of  the  two  controlling  principles,  the  flesh  and 
the  Spirit,  our  obligation  is  not  to  the  former,  but  to  the  latter. 
To  live  after  the  flesh;  rob  xara  adpxa  ^rjv.  The  genitive  is, 
here,  either  the  genitive  of  design,  '  in  order  that  we  should  live 
after  the  flesh;'  or  it  depends  on  dipeditae,  agreeably  to  the 
formula,  dcpeiXizr^c;  ecjuc  veuc  tcvoc;,  I  am  debtor  to  some  one  for 
something.  The  sense  would  then  be,  'We  do  not  owe  the  flesh 
a  carnal  life.'  The  former  explanation  is  the  simpler  and  more 
natural. 

Verse  13.  The  necessity  of  thus  living  is  enforced  by  a 
repetition  of  the  sentiment  of  ver.  6.  To  live  after  the  flesh  is 
death ;  to  live  after  the  Spirit  is  life.  For  if  ye  live  after  the 
flesh,  ye  shall  die;  but  if  ye  through  the  Spirit,  &c.  The 
necessity  of  holiness,  therefore,  is  absolute.  No  matter  what 
professions  we  may  make,  or  what  hopes  we  may  indulge,  justi- 
fication, or  the  manifestation  of  the  divine  favour,  is  never 
separated  from  sanctification.  Ye  shall  die;  fxiXXtzs  (knod^vij- 
axscu,  ye  are  about  to  die ;  death  to  you  is  inevitable.  Compare 
Matt.  iv.  24,  1  Thess.  iii.  4,  James  ii.  12.  The  death  here  spoken 
of,  as  appears  from  the  whole  context,  and  from  the  nature  of 
the  life  with  which  it  is  contrasted,  cannot  be  the  death  of  the 
body,  either  solely  or  mainly.  It  is  spiritual  death,  in  the  com- 
prehensive scriptural  sense  of  that  term,  which  includes  all  the 
penal  consequences  of  sin  here  and  hereafter,  chap.  vi.  21,  viii.  6, 


416  ROMANS  VIII.  14. 

Gal.  vi.  8.  But  if  ye  through  the  Spirit  do  mortify  the  deeds  of 
the  body,  ye  shall  live.  The  use  of  the  word  mortify,  to  put  to 
death  or  destroy,  seems  to  have  been  suggested  by  the  context. 
*Ye  shall  die,  unless  ye  put  to  death  the  deeds  of  the  body;* 
see  Col.  iii.  5.  The  destruction  of  sin  is  a  slow  and  painful 
process. 

Deeds  of  the  body.*  It  is  commonly  said  that  body  is  here 
equivalent  to  flesh,  and  therefore  signifies  corruption.  But  it 
is  very  much  to  be  doubted  whether  the  word  ever  has  this 
sense  in  the  New  Testament.  The  passages  commonly  quoted 
in  its  behalf,  Rom.  vi.  6,  vii.  24,  viii.  10,  13,  are  very  far  from 
being  decisive.  If  the  common  reading,  therefore,  is  to  be 
retained,  (see  note,)  it  is  better  to  take  the  word  in  its  literal 
and  usual  sense.  The  deeds  of  the  body  is  then  a  metonymical 
expression  for  sinful  deeds  in  general ;  a  part  being  put  for  the 
whole.  Deeds  performed  by  the  body,  being  the  deeds  which 
the  body,  as  the  organ  of  sin,  performs. 

The  destruction  of  sin  is  to  be  effected  through  the  Spirit, 
which  does  not  mean  the  renewed  feelings  of  the  heart,  but,  as 
uniformly  throughout  the  passage,  the  Holy  Spirit  which  dwells 
in  believers :  see  ver.  14,  where  this  Spirit  is  called  "  Spirit  of 
God."  Ye  shall  live,  that  is,  enjoy  the  life  of  which  the 
Spirit  is  the  author;  including  therefore  holiness,  happiness, 
and  eternal  glory. 

Verse  14.  For  as  many  as  are  led  by  the  Spirit  of  Grod,  they 
are  the  sons  of  Gfod.  This  is  the  reason  why  all  such  shall  live ; 
that  is,  a  new  argument  is  thus  introduced  in  support  of  the 
leading  doctrine  of  the  chapter.  Believers  shall  enjoy  eternal 
life,  not  only  because  they  have  the  Spirit  of  life,  but  because 
they  are  the  sons  of  God.  To  be  led  by  the  Spirit,' and  to  walk 
after  the  Spirit,  present  the  same  idea,  viz.  to  be  under  the 
government  of  the  Spirit,  under  two  different  aspects.  Gal. 
V.  18,  2  Pet.  i.  21.  The  former  phrase  refers  to  the  constant 
and  effectual  influence  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  regulating  the 
thoughts,  feelings,  and  conduct  of  believers.     Are  the  sons  of 

*  Instead  of  a-Z/w^Tog,  D.  E.  F  G.,  the  Vulgate  and  many  of  the  early  writers 
have  (Tst^jtoc,  which  Bengel  and  Griesbach  approve.  Although  this  reading  looks 
like  a  gloss,  it  has  much  in  its  favour  from  the  weight  of  these  MSS.,  and  the 
usual  mode  of  speaking  of  this  apostle. 


ROMANS  VIII.  15.  417 

Crod,  The  term  son,  in  such  connections,  expresses  mainly  one 
or  the  other  of  three  ideas,  and  sometimes  all  of  them  united. 
1.  Similarity  of  disposition,  character,  or  nature ;  Matt.  v.  9,  45, 
"That  ye  may  be  the  children  (Gr.  sons)  of  your  Father  -which 
is  in  heaven."  So,  too,  "sons  of  Abraham"  are  those  who  are 
like  Abraham;  and  "children  of  the  devil"  are  those  who  are 
like  the  devil.  2.  Objects  of  peculiar  affection.  Rom.  ix.  26, 
■  Those  who  were  not  my  people,  "  shall  be  called  the  sons  of  the 
living  God;"  2  Cor.  vi.  18,  "Ye  shall  be  my  sons  and  daugh- 
ters, saith  the  Lord  Almighty."  So  frequently  elsewhere. 
3.  Those  who  have  a  title  to  some  peculiar  dignity  or  advan- 
tage. Thus  the  "sons  of  Abraham"  are  those  who  are  heirs 
with  Abraham  of  the  same  promise,  Gal.  iii.  8,  seq.,  John  i.  12, 
1  John  iii.  2,  "Beloved,  now  are  we  the  sons  of  God,  and  it 
doth  not  yet  appear  what  we  shall  be,"  &c.  The  term  may 
indeed  express  any  one  of  the  various  relations  in  which  child- 
ren stand  to  their  parents,  as  derived  from  them,  dependent  on 
them,  &c.  The  above,  however,  are  the  most  common  of  its 
meanings.  In  this  passage,  the  first  and  third  ideas  appear 
specially  intended :  '  Believers  shall  live,  because  they  are  the 
peculiar  objects  of  the  divine  affection,  and  are  heirs  of  his 
kingdom,'  vs.  15,  16.  That  those  who  are  led  by  the  Spirit  are 
really  the  sons  of  God,  appears  from  their  own  filial  feelings, 
and  from  the  testimony  of  the  Spirit.  The  indwelling  of  the 
Spirit  of  God  raises  those  in  whom  he  dwells,  into  the  state  of 
sons  of  God.  By  regeneration,  or  new  birth,  they  are  born  into 
a  higher  life ;  are  made  partakers,  as  the  apostle  Peter  says, 
of  the  divine  nature ;  and  are  thus,  through  and  in  Christ,  tlie 
source  of  their  new  life,  the  objects  of  the  divine  love,  and  the 
heirs  of  his  kingdom. 

Verse  15.  For  ye  have  not  received  the  spirit  of  bondage 
again  to  fear,  hut  ye  have  received  the  Spirit  of  adoption,  &c. 
That  is,  '  The  Holy  Spirit,  which  you  have  received,  does  not 
produce  a  slavish  and  anxious  state  of  mind,  such  as  those 
experience  who  are  under  the  law ;  but  it  produces  the  filial 
feelings  of  affection,  reverence,  and  confidence,  and  enables  us, 
out  of  the  fulness  of  our  hearts,  to  call  God  our  Father.' 

The  phrase,  the  spirit  of  bondage,  may  mean  a  feeling  or 
sense  of  bondage,  as  "spirit  of  meekness,"  1  Cor.  iv.  21,  may 
27 


418  ROMANS  VIII.  15. 

mean  meekness  itself;  and  "spirit  of  fear,"  2  Tim.  i.  7,  fear 
itself.  This  use  of  the  word  spirit  is  not  uncommon.  Or  it  may 
mean  the  Holy  Spirit  as  the  author  of  bondage;  'Believers 
have  not  received  a  Spirit  which  produces  slavish  feelings,  but 
the  reverse.'  The  context  is  decidedly  in  favour  of  this  view: 
because  Paul  has  been  speaking  of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  dwelling 
in  Christians.  This  Spirit  is  that  which  they  have  received, 
and  is  the  author  of  their  characteristic  feelings.  In  the  words 
again  to  fear,  there  is  an  evident  allusion  to  the  state  of 
believers  prior  to  the  reception  of  the  Spirit.  It  was  a  state 
of  bondage  in  which  they  feared,  i.  e.  were  governed  by  a 
slavish  and  anxious  apprehension  of  punishment.  In  this  state 
are  all  unconverted  men,  whether  Jews  or  Gentiles,  because 
they  are  all  under  the  law,  or  the  bondage  of  a  legal  system. 

Spirit  of  adoption;  the  Spirit  that  produces  the  feelings 
which  children  have.  The  Spirit  is  so  called  because  he  adopts. 
It  is  by  him  we  are  made  the  sons  of  God,  and  his  indwelling, 
as  it  produces  the  character  of  sons,  so  it  is  the  pledge  or 
assurance  of  sonship,  and  of  final  salvation,  Eph.  i.  14.  The 
contrast  her^e  presented  between  the  rcveofxa  dooXeiaz  and  the 
7tv£U/jia  ulo&eaia;:,  is  parallel  to  that  between  douXoc  and  olol,  in 
Gal.  iii.  23 — 26,  iv.  1 — 8.  Those  who  are  unrenewed,  and 
under  the  law,  are  douXoc,  slaves;  they  are  under  the  dominion 
of  servile  fear,  and  they  have  no  right  to  the  inheritance. 
Those  who  are  in  Christ  by  faith  and  the  indwelling  of  his 
Spirit,  are  sons,  both  in  their  inward  state  and  feelings,  and  in 
their  title  to  everlasting  life.  The  interpretation  followed  by 
Luther,  who  renders  nveofxa  uco^eaca^,  "  ein  kindlicher  Geist," 
makes  spirit,  here,  mean  disposition,  feeling,  and  the  genitive 
[ulo&zaiat;)  the  genitive  of  the  source :  "  the  disposition  which 
flows  from  adoption  or  sonship."  But  this  is  not  only  incon- 
sistent with  the  context,  but  with  such  passages  as  Gal.  iv.  6, 
where  what  is  here  called  the  Spirit  of  adoption,  is  said  to  be 
the  Spirit  of  the  Son  of  God,  which  God  sends  forth  into  our 
hearts.  By  which  loe  cry,  Abba,  Father,  i.  e.  which  enables  us 
to  address  God  as  our  Father.  "  Clamor,"  says  Bengel,  "sermo 
vehemens,  cum  desederio,  fiducia,  fide,  constantia."  Abba  is 
the  Syriac  and  Chaldee  form  of  the  Jlebrew  word  for  father, 
and  therefore  was  to  the  apostle  the  most  familiar  term.     As 


ROMANS  VIII.  16.  419 

such  it  would,  doubtless,  more  naturally  and  fully  express  his 
filial  feeling  towards  God,  than  the  foreign  Greek  word.  It  is 
rare,  indeed,  that  any  other  than  our  mother  tongue  becomes 
so  inwoven  with  our  thoughts  and  feelings,  as  to  come  up  spon- 
taneously when  our  hearts  are  overflowing.  Hence,  expressions 
of  tenderness  are  the  last  words  of  their  native  language  which 
foreigners  give  up ;  and  in  times  of  excitement,  and  even  deli- 
rium, they  are  sure  to  come  back.  Paul,  therefore,  chose  to 
call  God  his  Father,  in  his  own  familiar  tongue.  Having  used 
the  one  word,  however,  the  Greek  of  course  became  necessary 
for  those  to  whom  he  was  writing.  The  repetition  of  two  syno- 
nymes  may,  however,  be  employed  to  give  fuller  utterance  to 
his  feeling.  This  is  Grotius's  idea:  "Imitatur  puerorum  patri- 
bus  blandientium  voces.  Mos  est  blandientium  repetere  voces 
easdem."  It  is  a  very  common  opinion  that  Paul  used  both 
words,  to  intimate  that  all  distinction  between  different  nations 
was  now  done  away.  "  Significat  enim  Paulus,  ita  nunc  per 
totum  mundum  publicatam  esse  Dei  misericordiam,  ut  promiscue 
linguis  omnibus  invocetur :  quemadmodum  Augustinus  observat. 
Ergo  inter  omnes  gentes  consensum  exprimere  voliiit."  Calvin. 
The  former  explanation  seems  more  natural  and  satisfactory. 

Verse  16.  The  Sjnrit  itself  beareth  zvitness  with  our  spirit, 
that  we  are  the  children  of  Crod.  'Not  only  do  our  own  filial 
feelings  towards  God  prove  that  we  are  his  children,  but  the 
Holy  Spirit  itself  conveys  to  our  souls  the  assurance  of  this 
delightful  fact.' 

The  Spirit  itself  {abrb  to  Ttveufxa,  and  not  rb  auzo  nvv'jp.a, 
which  would  mean,  the  same  spirit)  is,  of  course,  the  Holy 
Spirit.  1.  Because  of  the  obvious  distinction  between  it  and 
our  spirit.  2.  Because  of  the  use  of  the  word  throughout  the 
passage.  3.  Because  of  the  analogy  to  other  texts,  which  can- 
not be  otherwise  explained.  Gal.  iv.  6,  "  God  hath  sent  forth 
the  Spirit  of  his  Son  into  your  hearts,  crying,  Abba,  Father;" 
Bom.  V.  5,  "  The  love  of  God  is  shed  abroad  in  our  hearts  by 
the  Holy  Ghost  given  unto  us,"  &c. 

Beareth  witness  with  our  spirit,  aup.uapTupzi  rw  Trveofidrc 
^(jLwv;  that  is,  'beareth  witness,  together  with  our  own  filial 
feelings,  to  our  spirit.'  Although  it  is  very  common  for  com- 
pound verbs  to  have  the  same  force  with  the  simple  ones,  yet, 


420  ROMANS  VIII.  17. 

in  this  case,  the  context  requires  the  force  of  the  preposition  to 
be  retained,  as  two  distinct  sources  of  confidence  are  here  men- 
tioned, one  in  ver.  15,  the  other  in  this  verse.  Beareth  witness 
to,  means  confirms  or  assures.  '  The  Spirit  of  God  produces  in 
our  spirit  the  assurance  that  we  are  the  children  of  God.'  How 
this  is  done  we  cannot  fully  understand,  any  more  than  we  can 
understand  the  mode  in  which  he  produces  any  other  effect  in 
our  mind.  The  fact  is  clearly  asserted  here,  as  well  as  in  other 
passages.  See  Rom.  v.  5,  where  the  conviction  that  we  are  the 
objects  of  the  love  of  God,  is  said  to  be  produced  "by  the  Holy 
Ghost  which  is  given  unto  us."  See  2  Cor.  i.  22,  v.  5,  Eph.  i.  13, 
iv.  30 ;  and  in  1  Cor.  ii.  4,  5,  1  John  ii.  20,  27,  and  other  pas- 
sages, the  conviction  of  the  truth  of  the  gospel  is,  in  like  man- 
ner, attributed  to  the  Holy  Spirit.  From  this  passage  it  ia 
clear  that  there  is  a  scriptural  foundation  for  the  assurance  of 
salvation.  Those  who  have  filial  feelings  towards  God,  who 
love  him,  and  believe  that  he  loves  them,  and  to  whom  the 
Spirit  witnesses  that  they  are  the  children  of  God,  cannot 
doubt  that  they  are  indeed  his  children.  And  if  children,  they 
know  they  are  heirs,  as  the  apostle  teaches  in  the  following 
verse. 

Verse  17.  And  if  children,  then  heirs;  heirs  of  (rod,  and 
joint  heirs  with  Christ,  &c.  This  is  the  inference  from  our 
adoption,  in  favour  of  the  great  theme  of  the  chapter,  the  safety 
of  believers.  If  the  children  of  God,  they  shall  become  par- 
takers of  the  inheritance  of  the  saints  in  light.  The  words  to 
inherit,  heirs,  and  inheritance,  are  all  of  them  used  in  a  general 
sense  in  the  Scriptures,  in  reference  to  the  secure  possession 
of  any  good,  without  regard  to  the  mode  in  which  that  pos- 
session is  obtained.  They  are  favourite  terms  with  the  sacred 
writers,  because  possession  by  inheritance  was  much  more 
secure  than  that  obtained  by  purchase,  or  by  any  other  method. 
There  are  three  ideas  included  in  these  words,  accessory  to  that 
which  constitutes  their  prominent  meaning — the  right,  the  cer- 
tainty, and  the  unalienable  character  of  the  possession.  Hence, 
when  the  apostle  says,  believers  are  the  heirs  of  God,  he  means 
to  recognise  their  title,  in  and  through  the  Redeemer,  to  the 
promised  good,  as  well  as  the  certainty  and  security  of  the  pos- 
session.    "And  if  ye  be  Christ's,  then  are  ye  Abraham's  seed. 


ROMANS  VIII.  17.  421 

and  heirs  according  to  the  promise,"  Gal.  iii.  29.  In  Gal.  iv.  7, 
we  have  the  same  argument  as  in  the  passage  before  us, 
"  Wherefore  thou  art  no  more  a  servant,  but  a  son ;  and  if  a 
son,  then  an  heir  of  God  through  Christ;"  see  Col.  iii.  24, 
Heb,  ix.  15,  Eph.  i.  14,  &c.  Joint  heirs  with  Christ.  These 
words  are  intended  to  designate  the  inheritance  which  believers 
are  to  receive.  It  is  not  any  possession  in  this  world,  but  it  is 
that  good  of  which  Christ  himself  is  the  recipient ;  we  are  to  be 
partakers  of  his  inheritance.  This  idea  is  frequently  presented 
in  the  Scriptures.  "Enter  ye  into  the  joy  of  your  Lord," 
Matt.  XXV.  21;  "  That  ye  may  eat  and  drink  at  my  table  in  my 
kingdom,"  Luke  xxii.  30;  "To  him  that  Overcometh  will  I 
grant  to  sit  with  me  in  my  throne,"  &c.,  Rev.  iii.  21,  and  in 
many  other  places. 

If  so  he  that  we  suffer  with  him,  that  ive  may  he  also  glorified 
together.  Those  suiFer  with  Christ  who  suffer  as  he  did,  and  for 
his  sake.  They  are  thus  partakers  of  the  sufferings  of  Christ. 
We  suffer  as  Christ  suffered,  not  only  when  we  are  subject  to 
the  contradiction  of  sinners,  but  in  the  ordinary  sorrows  of  life 
in  which  he,  the  man  of  sorrows,  so  largely  shared.  We  are 
said  to  suffer  with  Christ,  Tvtt,  in  order  that  we  may  be  glorified 
together.  That  is,  the  design  of  God  in  the  affliction  of  his 
people,  is  not  to  satisfy  the  demands  of  justice,  but  to  prepare 
them  to  participate  in  his  glory.  To  creatures  in  a  state  of 
sin,  suffering  is  the  necessary  condition  of  exaltation.  It  is  the 
refining  process  through  which  they  must  pass,  1  Pet.  i.  6,  7. 
The  union  of  believers  with  Christ,  in  suffering  as  well  as  in 
glory,  is  what  he  and  his  apostles  taught  them  to  expect.  "  If 
any  man  will  come  after  me,  let  him  deny  himself,  and  take  up 
his  cross  and  follow  me,  Matt.  xvi.  24;  "If  we  be  dead  with 
him,  we  shall  also  live  with  him.  If  we  suffer,  we  shall  also 
reign  with  him,''  2  Tim.  ii.  11,  12.  The  blessedness  of  the 
future  state  is  always  represented  as  exalted:  it  is  a  glory, 
something  that  will  elevate  us  in  the  rank  of  beings ;  enlarging, 
purifying,  and  ennobling  all  our  faculties.  To  this  state  we  are 
to  attain  "through  much  tribulation,"  i.  e.  attain  it  as  Christ 
did.  And  this  is  what  the  apostle  here  intends  to  say,  and  not 
that  the  participation  of  Christ's  glory  is  a  reward  for  our 
having  suffered  with  him. 


422  ROMANS  VIII.  18,  19. 

Verse  18.  For  I  reckori  that  the  sufferings  of  this  present 
time  are  not  worthy  to  he  compared,  &c.  'If  children,  then 
heirs;  for  I  do  not  think  our  present  sufferings  inconsistent 
with  our  being  either  the  children  or  the  heirs  of  God: 
1.  Because  thej  are  comiDaratively  insignificant,  vs.  18 — 23 ; 
and,  2.  Because  we  are  sustained  under  them,  vs.  24 — 28.' 
Without  much  altering  the  sense,  the  for  may  be  considered  as 
referring  to  the  last  clause  of  the  preceding  verse:  'We  shall 
be  glorified  with  Christ,  for  these  present  afflictions  are  not 
worthy  of  thought.'  In  2  Cor.  iv.  17,  Paul  speaks  much  in  the 
same  manner  of  the  lightness  of  the  afflictions  of  this  life  in 
comparison  with  the  glory  that  shall  he  revealed  in  us.  We  are 
not  only  the  recipients  of  a  great  favour,  but  the  subjects  in 
which  a  great  display  of  the  divine  glory  is  to  be  made  to 
others,  Eph.  iii.  10.  It  is  a  revelation  of  glory  in  us ;  see  Col. 
iii.  4,  1  John  iii.  2.  Not  worthy,  obx  d^ia,  not  of  like  weight. 
"Aqcov  Tuuoi;,  what  outweighs  anything.  Here,  instead  of  the 
genitive,  Ttpb;;  is  used — Not  weighty  in  reference  to,  or  in  com- 
parison with.  As  the  glory  so  outweighs  the  suffering,  the  idea 
of  merit,  whether  of  condignity  or  of  congruity,  is  of  necessity 
excluded.  It  is  altogether  foreign  to  the  context.  For  it  is 
not  the  ground  on  which  eternal  life  is  bestowed,  but  the  great- 
ness of  the  glory  that  the  saints  are  to  inherit,  which  the 
apostle  designs  to  illustrate.  "Neque  enim,"  says  Calvin, 
"  dignitatem  utriusque  confert  apostolus,  sed  gravitatem  crucis 
tantum  elevat  comparatione  magnitudinis  glorise,  idque  ad  con- 
firmandos  patientia  fidelium  animos." 

The  apostle,  fired  with  the  thought  of  the  future  glory  of 
the  saints,  pours  forth  the  splendid  passage  which  follows, 
(vs.  19 — 23,)  in  which  he  represents  the  whole  creation  groan- 
ing under  its  present  degradation,  and  looking  and  longing  for 
the  revelation  of  this  glory,  as  the  end  and  consummation  of  its 
existence. 

Verse  19.  For  the  earnest  expectation  of  the  creature,  &c. 
This  verse  is  evidently  designed  to  confirm  the  assertion  con- 
tained in  the  preceding  verse.  As,  however,  it  is  there  asserted 
that  the  glory  to  be  revealed  in  us  is  great,  that  it  is  certain, 
and  that  it  is  future,  wliich  of  these  points  does  the  apostle 
here,  and  in  what  follows,  design  to  establish?    Some  say,  that 


ROMANS  VIIL  19.  423 

in  the  preceding  clause,  r>^v  fieXXouaav  do^av  d.Tzoxakxpd^r^vcu^ 
fxklXouaav  is  the  emphatic  word.  The  glory  is  future,  for  it  is 
an  object  of  expectation.  We  are  saved  only  in  hope.  Others 
again  say,  that  the  main  idea  is  that  this  glory  is  about  to  be, 
i.  e,  certainly  shall  be  revealed,  agreeably  to  the  special  force 
of  the  word  jieXXecv.  But  the  main  idea  of  ver.  18  obviously  is, 
that  this  future  glory  transcends  immeasurably  the  suffering  of 
this  present  state.  All  that  follows  tends  to  illustrate  and 
enforce  that  idea.  The  earnest  expectation,  dnoxapadoxia,  from 
xafjaooxtlv,  ereeto  capita  prospicere,  to  look  for  with  the  head 
erect.  The  aTvo  is  intensive ;  so  that  ditoxapadoxia  is  earnest  or 
persistent  expectation.  It  is  an  expectation  that  waits  the  time 
out,  that  never  fails  until  the  object  is  attained.  The  object 
of  this  earnest  expectation  is,  the  manifestation  of  the  sons  of 
God.  That  is,  the  time  when  they  shall  be  manifested  in  their 
true  character  and  glory  as  his  sons.  "Beloved,  now  are  we 
the  sons  of  God ;  and  it  doth  not  yet  appear  what  we  shall  be : 
but  we  know  that  when  he  shall  appear,  we  shall  be  like  him." 
1  John  iii.  2.  The  subject  of  this  expectation  is  the  xriacQ,  the 
creation.  As  this  word  signifies,  first,  the  act  of  creating,  and 
then,  any  individual  created  thing,  or  all  creatures  collectively, 
its  meaning  in  any  particular  place  must  be  determined  by  the 
context.  In  this  passage  it  has  been  made  to  mean:  1.  The 
whole  rational  and  irrational  creation,  including  angels,  and 
all  tilings  else,  animate  and  inanimate.  2.  The  whole  world, 
excluding  angels,  but  inclusive  of  the  irrational  animals. 
3.  The  whole  material  creation,  in  a  popular  sense,  as  we  say, 
all  nature.  4.  The  whole  human  race.  5.  The  heathen  world, 
as  distinguished  from  believers.  6.  The  body  of  believers. 
The  choice  between  these  several  interpretations  must  be  deter- 
mined by  what  is  predicated  of  the  xriaci;  in  this  immediate 
connection,  and  by  the  analogy  of  Scripture.  Unless  the 
Bible  elsewhere  speaks  of  angels  as  the  subjects  of  redemption, 
they  cannot  he  here  included,  especially  as  they,  as  a  class,  are 
not  subject  to  corruption.  How  far  irrational  animals  are 
included,  is  more  doubtful.  The  prophetic  representations  of 
the  Messianic  period  set  forth  not  only  inanimate  nature,  the 
deserts,  mountains,  and  forests,  as  rejoicing  in  the  new  order 
of  things,  but  also  the  beasts  of  the  field ;  and  therefore  there 


424  EOMANS  VIII.  19. 

is  scriptural  ground  for  including  them  under  the  comprehen- 
sive words  of  the  apostle.  That  xtiaii;  here,  is  to  be  taken,  not 
as  meaning  the  whole  human  family,  nor  the  heathen  world, 
nor  all  rational  creatures,  but  the  whole  creation  with  which  we 
are  immediately  connected — the  earth,  and  all  its  tribes  of 
beings,  man  excepted — is  the  opinion  of  the  great  majority 
of  commentators  of  all  ages.  It  is  supported  by  the  following 
considerations :  1.  In  the  first  place,  the  words  Tidaa  -^  xtc(tc(;, 
the  whole  creation,  are  so  comprehensive,  that  nothing  should 
be  excluded  which  the  nature  of  the  subject  and  the  context  do 
not  show  cannot  be  embraced  within  their  scope.  It  has 
already  been  remarked,  that  as  Paul  is  speaking  of  the  benefits 
of  redemption,  no  class  of  creatures  not  included  in  some  way 
in  that  redemption,  can  be  here  intended.  While  the  good 
angels  are,  according  to  the  Scriptures,  not  only  deeply  inter- 
ested in  this  great  work,  1  Pet.  i.  12,  but  receive  through  it  the 
clearest  manifestation  of  the  manifold  wisdom  of  God,  Eph.  ii.  7, 
yet  they  are  not  in  such  a  sense  partakers  of  the  redemption 
of  Christ  as  this  passage  supposes.  They  are  not  burdened 
with  the  consequences  of  man's  apostacy,  nor  can  they  be  repre- 
sented as  longing  for  deliverance  from  that  burden.  Angels, 
therefore,  must  be  excluded  from  "  the  whole  creation"  here 
intended.  2.  In  the  second  place,  as  the  apostle  clearly  dis- 
tinguishes between  the  xziact;  and  believers,  the  latter  cannot  be 
included  in  the  former.  'Not  only,'  he  says,  'the  xt'cocci,  but 
we  believers  groan  within  ourselves,'  &c.  3.  Neither  can  "the 
creature"  mean  the  race  of  mankind  as  distinguished  from 
Christians.  Hammond,  Locke,  Semler,  Ammon,  and  others, 
may  be  quoted  in  favour  of  this  interpretation.  Wetstein 
expresses  the  same  view  briefly  and  plausibly  thus :  "  Genus 
humanum  dividitur  in  eos,  qui  jam  Christo  nomen  dederunt, 
quique  primitise  vocantur  hie  et  Jac.  i.  18,  et  reliquos,  qui 
nondum  Christo  nomen  dederunt,  qui  vocantur  creatura,  vid. 
Marc.  xvi.  15.  Et  Judsei  sentiunt  onus  legis  suae:  gentes 
reliquse  tenebras  suas  palpant,  praedicatione  evangelii  tanquam 
e  somno  excitatae;  ubique  magna  rerum  convertio  expectatur." 
To  this,  however,  it  may  be  objected : 

(a)  It  cannot  be  said  of  the  world  of  mankind,  that   they 
have  an  earnest  expectation  and  desire  for  the  manifestation 


ROMANS  VIII.  19.  425 

of  the  sons  of  God.  The  common  longing  after  immortality,  to 
which  reference  is  made  in  defence  of  the  application  of  this 
verse  to  men  in  general,  is  very  far  from  coming  up  to  the 
force  of  the  passage.  "The  manifestation  of  the  sons  of  God" 
is  a  definite  scriptural  event,  just  as  much  as  the  second  advent 
of  Christ.  It  can,  therefore,  no  more  be  said  that  the  Avorld 
longs  for  the  one  event  than  for  the  other.  Yet  had  the  apostle 
said  the  whole  creation  was  longing  for  the  second  advent  of 
the  Son  of  God,  can  any  one  imagine  he  meant  they  were 
merely  sighing  after  immortality  ?  He  evidently  intends,  that 
the  creature  is  looking  forward,  with  earnest  expectation,  to 
that  great  scriptural  event  which,  from  the  beginning,  has  been 
held  up  as  the  great  object  of  hope,  viz.  the  consummation  of 
the  Redeemer's  kingdom. 

{b)  It  cannot  be  said,  in  its  full  and  proper  force,  that  man- 
kind were  brought  into  their  present  state,  not  by  their  own  act, 
or  "willingly,"  but  by  the  act  and  power  of  God.  The  obvious 
meaning  of  ver.  20  seems  to  be,  that  the  fact  that  the  creature 
was  subjected  to  its  present  state,  not  by  itself,  but  by  God,  is 
the  reason,  at  once,  why  it  longs  for  deliverance,  and  may  hope 
to  obtain  it.  Such  exculpatory  declarations  respecting  men, 
are  not  in  keeping  with  the  scriptural  mode  of  speaking  either 
of  the  conduct  or  condition  of  the  world. 

(c)  A  still  greater  difficulty  is  found  in  reconciling  this  inter- 
pretation with  ver.  21.  How  can  it  be  said  of  mankind,  as  a 
whole,  that  they  are  to  be  delivered  from  the  bondage  of  cor- 
ruption, and  made  partakers  of  the  glorious  liberty  of  the 
children  of  God?  And,  especially,  how  can  this  be  said  to 
occur  at  the  time  of  the  manifestation  of  the  sons  of  God, 
i.  e.  at  the  time  of  the  second  advent,  the  resurrection  day, 
when  the  consummation  of  the  Redeemer's  kingdom  is  to  take 
place?  According  to  the  description  here  given,  the  whole 
creation  is  to  groan  under  its  bondage  until  the  day  of  redemp- 
tion, and  then  it  also  is  to  be  delivered.  This  description  can, 
in  no  satisfactory  sense,  be  applied  to  mankind,  as  distinguished 
from  the  people  of  God. 

{d)  This  interpretation  does  not  suit  the  spirit  of  the  context 
or  drift  of  the  passage.  The  apostle  is  represented  as  saying, 
in  substance,  "The  very  nature  and  condition  of  the  human 


426  ROMANS  VIII.  19. 

race  point  to  a  future  state :  they  declare  that  this  is  an.  imper- 
fect, frail,  dying,  unhappy  state ;  that  man  does  not  and  cannot 
attain  the  end  of  his  being  here;  and  even  Christians,  sup- 
ported as  they  are  by  the  earnest  of  future  glory,  still  find 
themselves  obliged  to  sympathize  with  others  in  these  sufferings, 
sorrows,  and  deferred  hopes."*  But  how  feeble  and  attenuated 
is  all  this,  compared  to  the  glowing  sentiments  of  the  apostle ! 
His  object  is  not  to  show  that  this  state  is  one  of  frailty  and 
sorrow,  and  that  Christians  must  feel  this  as  well  as  others. 
On  the  contrary,  he  wishes  to  show  that  the  sufferings  of  this 
state  are  utterly  insignificant  in  comparison  with  the  future 
glory  of  the  sons  of  God.  And  then  to  prove  how  great  this 
glory  is,  he  says,  the  whole  creation,  with  outstretched  neck,  has 
been  longing  for  its  manifestation  from  the  beginning  of  the 
world;  groaning  not  so  much  under  present  evil  as  from  the 
desire  for  future  good. 

As  therefore  the  angels,  the  human  race,  and  believers  as  a 
class,  must  be  excluded,  what  remains  but  the  creation,  in  the 
popular  sense  of  that  word — the  earth,  with  all  it  contains, 
animate  and  inanimate,  man  excepted?  With  believers,  the 
whole  creation,  in  this  sense,  is  represented  as  being  burdened, 
and  longing  for  deliverance.  The  refutation  of  the  other  inter- 
pretations shuts  us  up  to  the  adoption  of  this.  It  is,  moreover, 
consistent  with  the  context  and  the  analogy  of  Scripture.  As 
the  object  of  the  apostle  is  to  impress  upon  believers  the  great- 
ness of  the  glory  of  which  they  are  to  be  the  subjects,  he  repre- 
sents the  whole  creation  as  longing  for  its  manifestation.  There 
is  nothing  in  this  unnatural,  unusual,  or  unscriptural.  On  the 
contrary,  it  is  in  the  highest  degree  beautiful  and  effective,  and 
at  the  same  time  in  strict  accordance  with  the  manner  of  the 
sacred  writers.  How  common  is  it  to  represent  the  whole 
creation  as  a  sentient  being,  rejoicing  in  God's  favour,  trem- 
bling at  his  anger,  speaking  aloud  his  praise,  &c.  How  often 
too  is  it  represented  as  sympathizing  in  the  joy  of  the  people 
of  God !  "  The  mountains  and  hills  shall  break  forth  before 
you  into  singing,  and  all  the  trees  of  the  fields  shall  clap  their 
hands."  Isa.  Iv.  12.  It  may  be  objected,  that  such  passages 
are  poetical ;  but  so  is  this.     It  is  not  written  in  metre,  but  it 

*  Professor  Stuart's  Commentary  on  Romans,  p.  340. 


ROMANS  VIII.  19.  427 

is  poetical  in  the  highest  degree.  There  is,  therefore,  nothing 
in  the  strong  figurative  language  of  ver.  19,  either  inappro- 
priate to  the  apostle's  object,  or  inconsistent  with  the  manner 
of  the  sacred  writers. 

It  may  also  with  the  strictest  propriety  be  said,  that  the  irra- 
tional creation  was  subjected  to  vanity,  not  willingly,  but  by 
the  authority  of  God.  It  shared  in  the  penalty  of  the  fall — 
"Cursed  is  the  earth  for  thy  sake."  Gen.  viii.  17.  And  it  is 
said  still  to  suffer  for  the  sins  of  its  inhabitants:  "Therefore 
hath  the  curse  devoured  the  earth,"  Isa.  xxiv.  6;  "How  long 
shall  the  land  mourn,  and  the  herbs  of  every  field  wither,  for 
the  wickedness  of  them  that  dwell  therein?"  Jer.  xii.  4.  This 
is  a  common  mode  of  representation  in  the  Scriptures.  How 
far  the  face  of  nature  was  affected,  or  the  spontaneous  fruitful- 
ness  of  the  earth  changed  by  the  curse,  it  is  vain  to  ask.  It  is 
sufficient  that  the  irrational  creation  was  made  subject  to  a  , 
frail,  dying,  miserable  state,  by  the  act  of  God  (not  by  its  own,)  v 
in  punishment  of  the  sins  of  me*n.  This  is  the  representation 
of  the  Scriptures,  and  this  is  the  declaration  of  Paul.  While 
this  is  true  of  the  irrational  creatiqp,  it  is  not  true  of  mankind. 

The  principal  point  in  the  description  of  the  apostle  is,  that 
this  subjection  of  the  creature  to  the  bondage  of  corruption  is 
not  final  or  hopeless,  but  the  whole  creation  is  to  share  in  the 
glorious  liberty  of  the  children  of  God.  This  also  is  in  perfect 
accordance  with  the  scriptural  mode  of  representation  on  this 
subject.  Nothing  is  more  familiar  to  the  readers  of  the  Old 
Testament,  than  the  idea  that  the  whole  face  of  the  world  is  to 
be  clothed  in  new  beauty  when  the  Messiah  appears :  "  The 
wilderness  and  the  solitary  place  shall  be  glad  for  them ;  and 
the  desert  shall  rejoice  and  blossom  as  the  rose,"  &c.  Isa. 
XXXV.  1,  xxix.  17,  xxxii.  15,  16.  "The  wolf  also  shall  dwell 
with  the  lamb,  and  the  leopard  shall  lie  down  with  the  kid,  and 
the  calf,  and  the  young  lion,  and  the  fatling  together;  and  a 
little  child  shall  lead  them."  Isa.  xi.  6.  Such  passages  are  too 
numerous  to  be  cited.  The  apostle  Peter,  speaking  of  the 
second  advent,  says  the  present  state  of  things  shall  be  changed, 
the  heavens  shall  be  dissolved,  and  the  elements  shall  melt  with 
fervent  heat :  "  Nevertheless  we,  according  to  his  promise,  look 
for  new  heavens  and  a  new  earth,  wherein  dwelleth  righteous- 


428  ROMANS  VIII.  19. 

ness,"  2  Pet.  iii.  7 — 13.  "And  I  saw  a  new  heaven  and  a  new 
earth;  for  the  first  heavens  and  the  first  earth  were  passed 
away,"  Rev.  xxi.  1;  see  Heb.  xii.  26,  27.  It  is  common,  there- 
fore, to  describe  the  advent  of  the  Messiah  as  attended  with  a 
great  and  glorious  change  of  the  external  world.  Whether  this 
is  intended  merely  as  an  exornation,  as  is  doubtless  the  case 
with  many  of  the  prophetic  passages  of  the  Old  Testament ;  or 
whether  it  is  really  didactic,  and  teaches  the  doctrine  of  the 
restoration  of  the  earth  to  more  than  its  pristine  beauty,  which 
seems  to  be  the  meaning  of  some  of  the  New  Testament  pas- 
sages, is  perfectly  immaterial  to  our  present  purpose.  It  is 
enough  that  the  sacred  writers  describe  the  consummation  of 
the  Redeemer's  kingdom  as  attended  with  the  palingenesia  of 
the  whole  creation.  This  is  all  Paul  does ;  whether  poetically 
or  didactically,  is  too  broad  a  question  to  be  here  entered  upon. 
In  further  confirmation  of  this  interpretation  it  may  be 
remarked,  that  this  doctrine  of  the  renewal  of  the  external 
world,  derived  from  the  language  of  the  prophets,  was  a  com- 
mon doctrine  among  the  Jews.  Abundant  evidence  of  this  fact 
may  be  seen  in  Eisenmenger's  Entdecktes  Judenthum  (Judaism 
Revealed,)  particularly  in  chapter  fifteenth  of  the  second  part. 
The  following  passages  are  a  specimen  of  the  manner  in  which 
the  Jewish  writers  speak  on  this  subject :  "  Hereafter,  when 
the  sin  of  men  is  removed,  the  earth,  which  God  cursed  on 
account  of  that  sin,  will  return  to  its  former  state  and  blessed- 
ness, as  it  Avas  before  the  sin  of  men,"  p.  828.  "At  this  time 
the  whole  creation  shall  be  changed  for  the  better,  and  return 
to  the  perfection  and  purity  which  it  had  in  the  time  of  the  first 
man,  before  sin  was."  See  this  latter  quotation,  and  others  of 
a  similar  import,  in  Tholuck.  In  the  early  Christian  Church, 
this  opinion  was  prevalent,  and  was  the  germ  whence  the  extra- 
vagances of  the  Millenarians  arose.  Almost  all  such  errors 
contain  a  portion  of  truth,  to  which  they  are  indebted  for  their 
origin  and  extension.  The  vagaries,  therefore,  of  the  early 
heretics,  and  the  still  grosser  follies  of  the  Talmudical  writers 
on  this  subject,  furnish  presumptive  and  confirmatory  evidence 
that  the  sacred  writers  did  teach  a  doctrine,  or  at  least  employed 
a  mode  of  speaking  of  the  future  condition  of  the  external 
world,  which  easily  accounts  for  these  errors. 


ROMANS  VIII.  20.  429 

The  objections  to  this  view  of  the  passage  are  inconclusive. 
1.  It  is  objected  that  it  would  require  us  to  understand  all  such 
passages  as  speak  of  a  latter  day  of  glory,  literally,  and  believe 
that  the  house  of  God  is  to  stand  on  the  top  of  the  moun- 
tains, &c.  But  this  is  a  mistake.  When  it  is  said,  "The 
heavens  declare  the  glory  of  God,"  we  do  not  understand  the 
words  literally,  although  we  understand  them  as  speaking  of 
the  visible  heavens.  2.  Neither  are  the  prophetic  descriptions 
of  the  state  of  the  world  at  the  time  of  the  second  advent, 
explained  literally,  even  when  understood  didactically,  that  is, 
as  teaching  that  there  is  to  be  a  great  and  glorious  change  in 
the  condition  of  the  world.  But  even  this,  as  remarked  above, 
is  not  necessary  to  make  good  the  common  interpretation.  It 
is  sufficient  that  Paul,  after  the  manner  of  the  other  sacred 
writers,  describes  the  external  world  as  sympathizing  with  the 
righteous,  and  participating  in  the  glories  of  the  Messiah's 
reign.  If  this  be  a  poetic  exaggeration  in  the  one  case,  it  may 
be  in  the  other.  Again,  it  is  objected  that  the  common  inter- 
pretation is  not  suited  to  the  design  of  the  passage.  But  this 
objection  is  founded  on  a  misapprehension  of  that  design.  The 
apostle  does  not  intend  to  confirm  our  assurance  of  the  truth 
of  future  glory,  but  to  exalt  our  conceptions  of  its  greatness. 
Finally,  it  is  said  to  be  very  unnatural,  that  Paul  should  repre- 
sent the  external  world  as  longing  for  a  better  state,  and 
Christians  doing  the  same,  and  the  world  of  mankind  be  left 
unnoticed.  But  this  is  not  unnatural  if  the  apostle's  design  be 
as  just  stated. 

There  appears,  therefore,  to  be  no  valid  objection  against 
supposing  the  apostle,  in  this  beautiful  passage,  to  bring  into 
strong  contrast  with  our  present  light  and  momentary  afflic- 
tions, the  permanent  and  glorious  blessedness  of  our  future 
state ;  and,  in  order  to  exalt  our  conceptions  of  its  greatness, 
to  represent  the  whole  creation,  now  groaning  beneath  the  con- 
sequences of  the  fall,  as  anxiously  waiting  for  the  long  expected 
day  of  redemption. 

Verse  20.  For  the  creature  was  made  subject  to  vanity,  &c. 
In  this  verse  there  are  three  reasons  expressed  or  implied  why 
the  creature  thus  waits  for  the  manifestation  of  the  sons  of  God. 
The  first  is,  that  it  is  now  subject  to  vanity.     2.  That  this  sub- 


430  ROMANS  VIII.  20. 

jection  was  not  voluntary,  but  imposed  by  God.  3.  That  it 
was  never  designed  to  be  final.  The  creature  was  subjected^ 
{uTteTdyfj,  historical  aorist :  the  fact  referred  to  occurred  at  the 
fall,  when  the  curse  fell  on  the  earth.)  To  vanity,  fiaTmox'qri. 
This  word  expresses  either  physical  frailty  or  worthlessness,  or 
moral  corruption.  Here  it  is  the  former;  in  Eph.  iv,  17, 
2  Pet.  ii.  18,  it  is  the  latter.  The  two  ideas,  however,  are  in 
the  Scriptures  nearly  related.  The  idea  here  expressed  is  anti- 
thetical to  that  expressed  by  the  word  glory.  It  includes, 
therefore,  all  that  distinguishes  the  present  condition  of  the 
creature  from  its  original  state,  and  from  the  glorious  future  in 
reserve  for  it.  What  is  expressed  by  fxaraiorrjt;,  is  in  ver.  21 
expressed  by  (pd^opd^,  corruption.  What  the  apostle  here  says 
of  the  creature,  was  familiar  to  his  Jewish  readers.  Their 
Rabbis  taught  that :  "  Quamvis  creatas  fuerint  res  perfectge,  cum 
primus  homo  peccaret,  corruptee  tamen  sunt,  et  non  redibunt 
ad  congruum  statum  suum,  donee  veniat  Pharez,"  i.  e.  Messias. 
See  Eisenmenger.  This  subjection  of  the  creature,  the  apostle 
says,  was  not  kxouaa,  not  willingly,  not  of  its  own  choice.  It 
was  neither  by  the  voluntary  act  of  the  creature,  nor  in  accord- 
ance with  its  own  inclination.  The  inanimate  creature  was  a 
passive  sufferer,  sharing  in  the  curse  which  fell  on  man  for  his 
apostacy.  But  by  reason  of  him  who  hath  subjected,  dXla  (on 
the  contrary)  8ta  tbv  bTTord^avra,  on  account,  i.  e.  in  accordance 
with  the  will  of  Him  who  rendered  it  subject.  It  was  the  will  of 
God,  not  of  the  creature,  which  caused  the  creature  to  be  subject 
to  vanity.  While  this  can  be  said  with  the  strictest  propriety, 
of  the  material  and  irrational  creation,  it  cannot  properly  ba 
said  of  sinners.  Their  subjection  to  the  bondage  of  corruption 
was  by  their  own  voluntary  act,  or  by  the  voluntary  act  of  their 
divinely  constituted  head  and  representative.  The  subjection 
of  the  creature  to  vanity,  however,  was  not  final  and  hopeless; 
it  was  kit  khtidc.  These  words  may  be  connected  either  with 
uTitrdfYj  or  with  uTtozd^avza:  '  the  creature  was  subjected  in 
hope;'  or,  'on  account  of  him  subjecting  it  in  hope.'  In  either 
case  the  sense  is  the  same.  The  subjection  was  not  a  hopeless 
one.  By  giving  vTceTdyvj  a  middle  sense,  and  connecting  i;r' 
kknidc  therewith,  we  have  the  beautiful  idea,  that  the  creature 
submitted  to  the  yoke  of  bondage  in  hope  of  ultimate  deliver- 


ROMANS  VIII.  21.  431 

ance.  "  Subjecit  se  jugo,  hac  tamen  spe,  ut  et  ipsa  liberetur 
tandem  ab  eo."  Kofi^e.  "  Obedientise  exemplura,"  says  Calvin, 
"in  creaturis  omnibus  proponit,  et  earn  addit  ex  spe  nasci,  quia 
hinc  soli  et  lunge,  stellisque  omnibus  ad  assiduum  cursum  alacri- 
tas ;  hinc  terrse  ad  fructus  gignendos  sedulitas  obsequii,  hinc 
aeris  indefessa  agitatio,  hinc  aquis  ad  fluxum  promptus  vigor, 
quia  Deus  suas  quibusque  partes  injunxit;  nee  tantum  praeciso 
imperio  quid  fieri  vellet,  sed  spem  renovationis  intus  simul 
indidit." 

Verse  21.  because  the  creature  itself  also  shall  be  delivered 
from  the  bondage  of  corruption,  &c.  This  verse,  according  to 
our  version,  assigns  the  reason  why  the  subjection  of  the  crea- 
ture was  not  hopeless.  This  reason  is,  that  the  creature  was 
to  share  in  the  glorious  redemption.  The  particle  on,  however, 
rendered  because,  may  be  rendered  that,  and  the  verse  then 
indicates  the  object  of  the  hope  just  spoken  of.  The  subjection 
was  with  the  hope  that  the  creature  should  be  delivered.  In 
either  way  the  sense  is  nearly  the  same.  The  creature  itself 
also,  is  another  of  the  forms  of  expression  which  show  that  Paul 
speaks  of  the  creation  in  a  sense  which  does  not  embrace  the 
children  of  God.  Bondage  of  corruption,  i.  e.  bondage  to  cor- 
ruption— the  state  of  frailty  and  degradation  spoken  of  above. 

Delivered,  or  liberated  into  the  liberty,  is  an  elliptical  form 
of  expression  for  '  delivered  and  introduced  into  the  liberty.' 
Liberty  of  glory,  as  the  words  literally  mean,  or  glorious  liberty, 
refer  to  that  liberty  which  consists  in,  or  is  connected  with  the 
glory  which  is  the  end  and  consummation  of  the  work  of 
j;-edemption.  This  word  is  often  used  for  the  whole  of  the 
results  of  the  work  of  Christ,  as  far  as  his  people  are  con- 
cerned; (see  ver.  18.)  The  creature  then  is  to  be  partaker  in 
some  way,  according  to  its  nature,  of  the  glories  in  reserve  for 
the  sons  of  God.  "Porro  non  intelligit,  consortes  ejusdem 
glorige  fore  creaturas  cum  filiis  Dei,  sed  suo  mode  melioris 
status  fore  socias :  quia  Deus  simul  cum  humane  genere  orbem 
nunc  collapsum  in  integrum  restituet.  Qualis  vero  futura  sit 
integritas  ilia  tam  in  pecudibus  quam  in  plantis  et  metallis, 
curiosius  inquirere  neque  expedit,  neque  fas  est.  Quia  prae- 
cipua  pars  corruptionis  est  interitus:  Quaerunt  arguti,  sed 
parum  sobrii  homines,  an  immortale  futurum  sit  omne  anima- 


432  ROMANS  VIII.  22,  23. 

Hum  genus :  his  speculationibus  si  frenum  laxetur,  quorsura 
tandem  nos  abripient?  Hac  ergo  simplici  doctrina  contenti 
simus,  tale  fore  temperamentum,  et  tarn  concinnum  ordinem,  ut 
nihil  vel  deforme  vel  fluxum  appareat."    Calvin. 

Verse  22.  For  we  know  that  the  whole  creation  groaneth 
and  travaileth  in  pain  togetJier  until  now.  This  verse  is  a  repe- 
tition and  confirmation  of  the  preceding  sentiment :  '  The  crea- 
ture is  subject  to  vanity,  and  longs  for  deliverance ;  for  we 
see,  from  universal  and  long  continued  experience,  the  whole 
creation  groaning  and  travailing  in  pain.'  It  is,  however,  as 
Calvin  remarks,  the  pains  of  birth,  and  not  of  death.  After 
sorrow  comes  the  joy  of  a  new  existence.  The  word  together 
may  have  reference  to  the  whole  creation  which  groans  together, 
all  its  parts  uniting  and  sympathizing ;  or  it  may  refer  to  the 
sons  of  God,  '  For  the  whole  creation  groans  together  with  the 
sons  of  God.'  On  account  of  the  following  verse,  in  which 
Christians  are  specially  introduced  as  joining  with  the  whole 
creation  in  this  sense  of  present  misery  and  desire  of  future 
good,  the  former  method  of  understanding  the  passage  seems 
preferable.  Until  notv,  from  the  beginning  until  the  present 
time.  The  creature  has  always  been  looking  forward  to  the 
day  of  redemption.  "Particula  Hactenus,  vel  ad  hunc  usque 
diem,  ad  levandura  diuturni  languoris  taedium  pertinet.  Nam 
si  tot  sseculis  durarunt  in  suo  gemitu  creaturse,  quam  inexcusa- 
bilis  erit  nostra  mollities  vel  ignavia,  si  in  brevi  umbratilis  vitse 
curriculo  deficimus?"    Calvin. 

Verse  23.  And  not  only  so,  hut  ourselves  also,  who  have  the 
first  fruits  of  the  Spirit,  <&c.  '  Not  only  does  the  whole  crea-. 
tion  thus  groan,  but  we  ourselves,  we  Christians,  who  have  a 
foretaste  of  heavenly  bliss,  the  first  fruits  of  the  glorious  inhe- 
ritance, we  groan  within  ourselves,  and  long  for  the  consum- 
mation of  glory.'  The  first  fruits  was  that  portion  of  the 
productions  of  the  earth  which  was  offered  to  God.  From  the 
nature  of  the  case,  they  contained  the  evidence  and  assurance 
of  the  whole  harvest  being  secured.  The  idea,  therefore,  of  an 
earnest  or  pledge  is  included  in  the  phrase,  as  well  as  that  of 
priority.  This  is  the  general  if  not  constant  use  of  the  word  in 
the  New  Testament.  Thus  Christ  is  called  "  the  first  fruits  of 
them  that  slept,"  1  Cor.  xv.  20,  not  merely  because  he  rose 


ROMANS  VIII.  23.  433 

first,  but  also  because  his  resurrection  was  a  pledge  of  the 
resurrection  of  his  people.  See  Rom.  xi.  16,  xvi.  5, 1  Cor.  xvi.  15, 
James  i.  18.  In  all  these  places,  both  ideas  may  be,  and  pro- 
bably ought  to  be  retained.  In  the  passages  before  us,  what  is 
here  called  the  first  fruits  of  the  Spirit,  is  elsewhere  called  the 
earnest  of  the  Spirit,  Eph.  i.  14,  &c.  The  phrases,  the  Spirit 
which  is  the  first  fruits,  and  the  Spirit  which  is  an  earnest,  are 
therefore  synonymous.  The  Spirit  is  the  first  fruits  of  the  full 
inheritance  of  the  saints  in  light.  The  expression  in  the  text, 
therefore,  is  descriptive  of  all  Christians,  and  not  of  any  par- 
ticular class  of  them;  that  is,  it  is  not  to  be  confined  to  those 
who  first  received  the  influences  of  the  Spirit,  or  were  first 
converted. 

The  interpretation  given  above,  of  this  clause,  is  the  one  most 
commonly  received,  and  the  most  natural.  There  is,  however, 
great  diversity  in  the  MSS.  as  to  the  text,  although  the  sense 
is  substantially  the  same,  whichever  of  the  various  readings  be 
adopted.  The  common  text  is :  oh  fiovov  de,  dXXa  xal  aoroi  zyjv 
i~ai>y^qv  zou  Tiveufiaroi;  e^ovrsc?  ^«i  J^/^-^C  aozol  iv  kaoTul(; 
azivd^ofioev.  This  may  mean,  'Not  only  (the  xziac<:,)  but  they 
having  the  first  fruits  of  the  Spirit,  and  we  ourselves  groan,'  &c. 
A  distinction  is  thus  made  between  those  who  have  the  first 
fruits  of  the  Spirit,  and  those  meant  by  we  ourselves.  Those 
who  adopt  this  interpretation  suppose  that  Paul  intended  by 
wg,  either  himself  individually,  or  himself  and  the  other  apos- 
tles. This  view  of  the  passage,  however,  is  not  the  natural 
one,  even  assuming  the  correctness  of  the  common  text;  and  is 
impossible,  if  the  true  reading  be  '^pel^  ahzol,  as  found  in  the 
MSS.  D.  F.  G.,  and  adopted  by  many  critics.  The  ahzoi  in 
the  first  clause,  and  the  /^/isTc  ohzoi,  refer  to  the  same  class  of 
persons,  and  indicate  the  subject  of  the  verb  aztvbZ,op.zv.  It  is 
more  doubtful  what  force  should  be  given  to  the  participle 
lyovzEZ.  As  the  article  is  omitted,  most  commentators  render 
It,  'although  having.'  'Even  we  groan,  although  having  the 
present  influences  and  support  of  the  Spirit.'  In  our  version, 
and  by  Calvin,  Beza,  and  Bengel,  it  is  rendered  as  though  the 
article  was  used,  61  ij^ovzsc,  even  we  who  have,  i.  e.  the  possessors 
of.  This  IS  more  pertinent,  as  the  apostle's  object  is  to  desig- 
nate the  class  intended  by  we.  The  article  in  such  cases  is  not 
28 


434  ROMANS  VIII.  23. 

always  used,  (see  ver.  1,)  according  to  the  common  text.  In 
the  phrase  djiapyyi  too  nvtuiiaroQ,  the  genitive  may  be  taken  as 
the  genitivics  partivus.  In  favour  of  this  is  the  signification  of 
the  word,  and  its  ordinary  use.  In  such  expressions  as  "first 
fruits  of  the  corn  and  of  the  wine,"  "of  the  dead,"  and  others 
of  a  like  kind,  the  genitive  indicates  that  of  which  the  first 
fruits  are  a  part.  This  gives  a  good  sense  here:.  Believers  now 
possess  and  now  enjoy,  in  the  indwelling  of  the  Spirit,  a  pre- 
libation  of  what  they  are  to  receive  hereafter — a  part  of  the 
full  measure  of  divine  influence  in  reserve  for  them.  Still  the 
analogy  of  Scripture  is  in  favour  of  taking  the  genitive  as  the 
genitive  of  apposition.  The  Holy  Spirit  is  the  dTzapy^;  or  as 
it  is  said  in  Eph.  i.  14,  2  Cor.  i.  22,  v.  5,  dftpaj^uju,  the  earnest 
of  the  Spirit.  The  inheritance  of  the  saints  in  light,  is  that  of 
which  the  Spirit  is  the  first  fruits  and  the  earnest. 

Sven  we  ourselves  groan  within  ourselves,  ev  kauzol^,  as 
expressing  the  internal  load  by  which  the  believer  is  now 
oppressed.  Waiting  for  the  adojjtion,  ulod-tmav  without  the 
article;  'waiting  for  adoption.'  There  is  a  sense  in  which 
believers  are  now  the  sons  of  God  and  partakers  of  adoption. 
But  the  full  enjoyment  of  their  blessedness  as  the  children  of 
God,  the  time  when  they  shall  be  recognised  as  ulol,  and  enter 
upon  their  inheritance  as  such,  is  still  future.  Here  Christians 
are  in  the  condition  of  vqTtiot^  minor  children ;  their  introduc- 
tion into  the  state  of  ulo't,  in  the  sense  of  adult  sons  entitled  to 
their  inheritance,  is  their  uto&eaia,  for  which  they  now  wait, 
[d.7tBxdBYPfitvoc,)  with  patient,  but  earnest  desire.  What,  there- 
fore, in  the  foregoing  verse  is  expressed  by  "  the  manifestation 
of  the  sons  of  God,"  is  here  expressed  by  the  single  word 
"adoption."  Even  the  redemption  of  the  body.  The  redemp- 
tion of  the  hody  is  not  so  in  apposition  with  the  adoption,  that 
the  two  phrases  are  equivalent.  The  adoption  includes  far 
more  than  the  redemption  of  the  body.  But  the  latter  event  is 
to  be  coincident  with  the  former,  and  is  included  in  it,  as  one 
of  its  most  prominent  parts.  Both  expressions,  therefore, 
designate  the  same  period:  'We  wait  for  the  time  when  we 
shall  be  fully  recognised  as  the  children  of  God,  i.  e.  for  the 
time  when  our  vile  bodies  shall  be  fashioned  like  unto  the  glori- 
ous body  of  the  Son  of  God.'    How  much  stress  Paul  laid  upon 


ROMANS  VIII.  24,  25.  435 

the  redemption  of  the  body,  is  evident  not  only  from  this  pas- 
sage, and  that  in  Philip,  iii.  21,  just  quoted,  but  also  from  the 
whole  of  1  Cor.  xv.,  especially  the  latter  part  of  the  chapter. 
The  time  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  or  the  manifestation 
of  the  sons  of  God,  is  the  time  of  the  second  advent  of  Jesus 
Christ.  See  1  Cor.  xv.  23,  "Christ  the  first  fruits;  afterwards 
they  that  are  Christ's,  at  his  coming."  1  Thess.  iv.  16,  "For 
the  Lord  himself  shall  descend  from  heaven  with  a  shout ;  and 
the  dead  in  Christ  shall  rise  first.  Then  we  which  are 
alive,"  &c.  This  is  the  period  towards  which  all  eyes  and  all 
hearts  have  been  directed,  among  those  who  have  had  the  first 
fruits  of  the  Spirit,  since  the  fall  of  Adam;  and  for  which  the 
whole  creation  groaneth  and  is  in  travail  even  until  now. 

Verses  24,  25.  The  apostle,  intending  to  show  that  the  pre- 
sent afilictions  of  believers  are  not  inconsistent  with  their  being 
the  children  of  God,  and  are  therefore  no  ground  of  discourage- 
ment, refers  not  only  to  their  comparative  insignificance,  but 
also  to  the  necessity  which  there  is,  from  the  nature  of  the  case, 
for  these  sufferings :  '  Salvation,  in  its  fulness,  is  not  a  present 
good,  but  a  matter  of  hope,  and  of  course  future;  and  if  future, 
it  follows  that  we  must  wait  for  it  in  patient  and  joyful  expecta- 
tion.' While,  therefore,  waiting  for  salvation  is  necessary,  from 
the  nature  of  the  case,  the  nature  of  the  blessing  waited  for, 
converts  expectation  into  desire,  and  enables  us  patiently  to 
endure  all  present  evils. 

For  we  are  saved  by  hope,  rfj  yafj  e?,7rcdc  kaco&r^/usp.  At  the 
close  of  the  preceding  verse,  Paul  had  spoken  of  believers  as 
ivaiting  for  the  adoption.  They  thus  wait,  because  salvation  is 
not  a  present  good,  but  a  future  one.  We  are  saved  in  hope, 
i.  e.  in  prospect.  The  dative  {iXcTcidc)  does  not  Jn.„this  case 
express  the  means  by  whichianything  is  done,  but  the<<gpndition 
or  (cjrcumstances  in  which  it  is,  or  the  way  and  manner  in  which 
it  occurs.  It  is  therefore  analogous  to  our  forms  of  expression, 
loe  have  a  thing  in  exjMctation  or  prosjyect.  Salvation  is  a  bless- 
ing we  have  in  hope,  not  in  possession:  if  it  be  the  one,  it 
cannot  be  the  other,  since  hop>e  that  is  seen  is  not  hope.  It  lies 
in  the  nature  of  hope,  that  its  object  must  be  future.  The  word 
hope  is  here  used  objectively  for  the  thing  hoped  for,  as  in  Col. 
i.  5,  "The  hope  that  is  laid  up  for  you  in  heaven;  Heb.  vi.  18, 


436  ROMANS  VIII.  25,  26. 

Eph.  i.  18,  &c.  The  latter  clause  of  the  verse,  for  what  a 
man  seeth,  why  doth  he  yet  hope  for^  is  only  a  confirmation  of 
the  previous  declaration,  that  it  lies  in  the  nature  of  hope  to 
have  reference  to  the  future.  "This  passage,"  says  Olshausen, 
"  is  specially  important  for  determining  the  true  nature  of  hope. 
It  stands  opposed  to  ^XsTieiv,  seeing — which  supposes  the  object 
to  be  externally  present.  It  is,  however,  no  less  opposed  to  the 
entire  absence  of  its  object.  It  is,  on  the  contrary,  the  inward 
possession  of  the  things  hoped  for,  so  far  as  they  are  spiritual. 
A  man  can  believe,  and  hope  for  eternal  things,  only  so  far  as 
they  are  inwardly  present  to  him.  Therefore  it  is  that  Chris- 
tian hope  is  something  so  exalted.  It  is  the  daughter  of  expe- 
rience, (Rom.  V.  4,)  and  maketh  not  ashamed.  It  is  the  sister 
of  faith  and  love.  Good  wishes,  desires,  and  longings,  are  not 
hope,  because  they  do  not  involve  the  real  possession  of  the 
things  longed  for." 

Verse  25.  But  if  ive  hope  for  that  toe  see  not,  &c.  That  is, 
'If  hope  has  reference  to  the  unseen  and  the  future,  then,  as 
salvation  is  a  matter  of  hope,  it  is  a  matter  to  be  waited  for.' 
It  results,  therefore,  from  the  nature  of  the  plan  of  redemption, 
that  the  full  fruition  of  its  blessing  should  not  be  obtained  at 
once,  but  that  through  much  tribulation  believers  should  enter 
into  the  kingdom;  consequently,  their  being  called  upon  to 
suffer  is  not  at  all  inconsistent  with  their  being  sons  and  heirs. 
Then  do  we  with  patience  wait  for  it;  dc  bTzoiJioWjQ,  with  con- 
stancy, or  firmness,  which  includes  the  idea  of  patience,  as  its 
consequence.  There  is  something  more  implied  in  these  words 
than  that  salvation,  because  unseen,  must  be  waited  for.  This, 
no  doubt,  from  the  connection,  is  the  main  idea ;  but  we  not 
only  wait,  but  we  wait  with  patience,  or  constancy.  There  is 
something  in  the  very  expectation  of  future  good,  and  especially 
of  such  good,  the  glory  that  shall  be  revealed  in  us,  to  produce 
not  only  patient  but  even  joyful  endurance  of  all  present  suflFer- 
ing.  "Spes  ista,"  says  Grotius,  "non  infructuosa  est  in  nobis, 
egregiam  virtutem  operatur,  malorum  fortem  tolerationem." 

Verse  26.  Not  only  does  hope  thus  cheer  and  support  the 
suffering  believer,  but  likeivise  the  Spirit  also  helpeth  our  infirm- 
ities. Likewise,  literally,  in  the  same  way.  As  hope  sustains, 
so,  in  the  same  manner,  the  Spirit  does  also.     Not  that  the 


ROMANS  VIII.  26.  437 

mode  of  assistance  is  the  same,  but  simply  as  the  one  does,  so 
also  does  the  other.  In  this  case  at  least,  therefore,  the  word 
thus  rendered  is  equivalent  to  moreover.  The  translation 
like^oise  suits  the  context  exactly.  Helpeth,  the  word  oovaurc- 
Xan^dvsToc,  means  to  take  Jiold  of  any  thing  with  another,  to 
take  part  in  his  burden  or  work,  and  thus  to  aid.  Compare 
Luke  X.  40.  It  is,  therefore,  peculiarly  expressive  and  appro- 
priate. It  represents  the  condescending  Spirit  as  taking  upon 
himself,  as  it  were,  a  portion  of  our  sorrows  to  relieve  us  of 
their  pressure.  "  Magna  est  vis  Graeci  verbi  aovavTcXaix^6.vs.a&ac, 
quod  scilicet  partes  oneris  quo  nostra  infirmitas  gravatur,  ad  se 
recipiens  Spiritus  non  modo  auxiliatur  nobis  et  succurrit,  sed 
perinde  nos  sublevat  acsi  ipse  nobiscum  onus  subiret." — Calvin. 
Our  infirmities*  is  the  appropriate  rendering  of  the  original, 
which  expresses  the  idea  both  of  weakness  and  suffering.  Heb. 
iv.  15,  "  We  have  not  an  high  priest  which  cannot  be  touched 
with  a  feeling  of  our  infirmities;"  2  Cor.  xii.  5,  "I  will  not 
glory,  but  in  mine  infirmities." 

For  tve  know  not  what  we  should  pray  for  as  ive  ought; 
hut  the  Spirit,  &c.  What  we  know  not  is :  to  ri  Ttpot^eu^tofis&a 
xa&b  dd.  The  article  to  belongs  to  the  whole  clause,  as  in 
Luke  ix.  46 ;  Acts  iv.  21,  and  after. —  Winer,  20.  3.  This  is 
said  as  an  illustration  and  confirmation  of  the  previous  general 
declaration ;  it  is  an  example  of  the  way  in  which  the  Spirit 
aids  us»  '  He  helpeth  our  infirmities,  for  he  teaches  us  how  to 
pray,  dictating  to  us  our  supplications,'  &c.  The  necessity  for 
this  aid  arises  from  our  ignorance ;  we  know  not  what  to  pray 
for.  We  cannot  tell  what  is  really  best  for  us.  Heathen 
philosophers  gave  this  as  a  reason  why  men  ought  not  to 
pray  !f  How  miserable  their  condition  when  compared  to 
ours !  Instead  of  our  ignorance  putting  a  seal  upon  our  lips, 
and  leaving  our  hearts  to  break,  the  Spirit  gives  our  desires  a 
language  heard  and  understood  of  God.  As  we  know  not  how 
to  pray,  the  Spirit  teaches  us.  This  idea  the  apostle  expresses 
by  saying,  the  Spirit  itself  maheth  intercession  for  us.     The 

*  For  TstT?  atrS-m/auc.  the  singular  tJ  u<r9-svf/st  is  read  by  MSS.  A.  C.  D.  10,  23, 
31,  37,  47,  and  the  Syriac  and  Latin  versions.     Lachmann  has  the  singular. 

f  Diogenes,  L.  VIII.  9.  Pythagoras  mk  ia  I'^^itrb-xi  vtt'i^  imjtZv'  Sm  to  y.>i  tiiiixi 
TO  s-ufx^ipov. —  Wetstein. 


438  ROMANS  VIII.  26. 

simple  verb  [iuTuy^^duuj),  rendered  he  maketh  intercession,  pro- 
perly means  to  meet,  then  to  approach  any  one  to  make  suppli- 
cation, Acts  XXV.  24.  This  supplication  may  be  against  any 
one,  Rom.  xi.  2,  or  for  him,  v.  34;  Heb.  vii.  25.  Hence,  to 
intercede  for,  is  to  act  the  part  of  advocate  in  behalf  of  any 
one.  This  Christ  is  said  to  do  for  us  in  the  last  two  passages 
cited,  as  well  as  in  Heb.  ix.  24,  1  John  ii.  1,  and  John  xiv.  16, 
for  Christ  calls  the  Holy  Spirit  ^'•another  advocate,"  i.  e. 
another  than  himself.  This  office  is  ascribed  to  the  Spirit  in 
the  last  passage  quoted  in  John  xiv.  26,  xv.  26,  and  xvi.  7,  as 
well  as  in  the  passage  before  us.  As  the  Spirit  is  thus  said,  in 
the  general,  to  do  for  us  what  an  advocate  did  for  his  client,  so 
he  does  also  what  it  was  the  special  duty  of  the  advocate  to 
perform,  i.  e.,  to  dictate  to  his  clients  what  they  ought  to  say, 
how  they  should  present  their  cause.*  In  this  sense  the  pre- 
sent passage  is  to  be  understood.  We  do  not  know  how  to 
pray,  but  the  Spirit  teaches  us.  All  true  prayer  is  due  to  the 
influence  of  the  Spirit,  who  not  only  guides  us  in  the  selection 
of  the  objects  for  which  to  pray,  but  also  gives  us  the  appro- 
priate desires,  and  works  within  us  that  faith  without  which 
our  prayers  are  of  no  avail.  We  are  not  to  suppose  that  the 
Spirit  itself  prays,  or  utters  the  inarticulate  groans  of  which 
the  apostle  here  speaks.  He  is  said  to  do  what  he  causes  us 
to  do.  "  Interpellare  aute.m  dicitur  Spiritus  Dei,"  says  Cal- 
vin; "  non  quod  ipse  re  vera  suppliciter  se  ad  precanckim  vel 
gemendum  demittat,  sed  quod  in  animis  nostris  excitet  ea  vota, 
quibus  nos  sollicitari  convenit ;  deinde  corda  nostra  sic  afficiat 
ut  suo  ardore  in  coelum  penetrent."  Nevertheless,  far  more  is 
meant  than  that  the  Spirit  teaches  us  to  pray,  as  one  man  may 
teach  another.  And  more  is  meant  than  that,  by  a  mere  ah 
extra  influence,  certain  desires  and  feelings  are  awakened  in 
our  hearts.  The  Spirit  dwells  in  the  believer  as  a  principle  of 
life.  In  our  consciousness  there  is  no  difierence  between  our 
own  acting  and  those  of  the  Spirit.  There  is,  however,  a 
concursus,  a  joint  agency  of  the  divine  and  human  in  all  holy 
exercises,  and  more  especially  in  those  emotions,  desires,  and 

*  See  Knapp's  Dissertation  De  Spiritu  Sancto  et  Christo  Paracletis,  p.  114, 
of  his  Scripta  Varii  Argumenti.  Or  the  translation  of  that  Dissertation  in 
the  Biblical  Repertory,  Vol.  I.  p.  234. 


ROMANS  VIII.  27.  439 

aspirations  which  we  are  unable  to  clothe  in  words.  The 
axzvayixoic,  d.lakqxoic^  may  mean  with  unutterable  or  unuttered 
groanings.  The  former  is  not  only  more  forcible,  but  it  is 
more  in  accordance  with  the  experience  and  language  of  men. 
It  is  common  to  speak  of  emotions  too  big  for  utterance,  and 
we  all  know  what  that  means.  The  analogy  of  scripture  is 
also  in  favour  of  this  view.  The  Bible  speaks  of  God's 
unspeakable  gift,  2  Cor.  xii.  4,  of  dfjfWjTa  jSij/jtara,  '  words 
which  cannot  be  uttered;'  and  of  'a  joy  that  is  unspeakable,' 
jfa^a  du£x?A/.r^TO(;. 

Verse  27.  Although  these  desires  are  not,  and  cannot  be 
uttered,  the  eye  of  Him  who  searches  the  heart  can  read  and 
understand  them.  And  (rather,  but)  he  who  searcheth  the 
hearts.  To  search  the  heart  is  the  prerogative  of  God,  as  it 
implies  omniscience.  As  no  man  knoweth  the  thmgs  of  a  man, 
but  the  spirit  of  man  that  is  in  him,  to  read  the  unexpressed 
emotions  of  the  soul  must  be  the  work  of  Him  to  whose  eyes 
all  things  are  naked.  "  I  the  Lord,  search  the  heart,  1  try  the 
reins."  Jer,  xvii.  10,  Ps.  cxxxix.  7,  9,  Rev.  ii.  23.  Know- 
eth the  mind  of  the  Spirit.  ^y  ippbvr^iia  xou  7:veufjiaT0(;  is 
meant  the  meaning,  intention  of  the  Spirit,  what  he  means  by 
those  unutterable  groanings.  By  Spirit  must  be  here  under- 
stood, as  the  context  requires,  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  is  that 
Spirit  who  intercedes  for  the  saints  and  in  them,  and  who  is 
expressly  distinguished  from  the  soul  in  which  he  dwells.  God 
is  said  to  know  the  mind  of  the  Spirit.  As  the  word  to  know 
is  so  often  used  with  the  implication  of  the  idea  of  approval, 
this  may  mean,  God  recognises  or  approves  of  the  mind  of  the 
Spirit.  "  Hie  verbi  nosse,''  says  Calvin,  "  adnotanda  est  pro- 
prietas ;  significat  enim,  Deum  non  novos  et  insolentes  illos 
Spiritus  affectus  non  animadvertere,  vel  tanquam  absurdos 
rejicere;  sed  agnoscere,  et  simul  benigne  excipere  ut  agnitos 
sibi  et  probates."  If  this  be  the  meaning  of  the  word,  then 
the  following  on  is  causal,  and  introduces  the  reason  why  God 
thus  approves  of  the  mind  of  the  Spirit.  It  is  because  the 
Spirit  maketh  intercession  for  the  saints  xard  deov  according  to 
God,  i.  e.,  agreeably  to  his  will.  The  desires  produced  by  the 
Spirit  of  God  himself  are,  of  course,  agreeable  to  the  will  of 
God,  and  secure  of  being  approved  and  answered.     This  is  the 


440  ROMANS  VIII.  28. 

great  consolation  and  support  of  believers.  They  know  not 
either  what  is  best  for  themselves  or  agreeable  to  the  will  of 
God;  but  the  Holy  Spirit  dictates  those  petitions  and  excites 
those  desires  which  are  consistent  with  the  divine  purposes, 
and  which  are  directed  towards  the  blessings  best  suited  to  our 
wants.  Such  prayers  are  always  answered.  "And  this  is 
the  confidence  that  we  have  in  him,  that  if  we  ask  any  thing 
according  to  his  will,  he  heareth  us,"  1  John  v.  7.  But  if 
olds  is  to  be  taken  in  its  ordinary  sense,  then  ore  is  explicative. 
'  God  knows  that  the  Spirit,'  &c.  Those  who  adopt  this  view 
generally  render  xava  0e6v  towards  Gfod,  i.  e.,  before  God. 
'The  Spirit  intercedes  before  God  for  the  saints.'  In  favour 
of  this  interpretation  of  the  passage,  it  is  urged  that  this  is  the 
proper  place  of  the  word  olds ;  and  as  to  the  clause  xara  debv, 
it  is  said,  God's  knowing  the  mind  of  the  Spirit,  does  not 
depend  on  its  being  according  to  his  will.  He  would  knoiv  it 
whether  in  accordance  with  his  will  or  not.  This  difficulty, 
however,  does  not  exist  if  olds  means  '  he  recognises  and 
approves.'  It  is  making  the  verse  say  comparatively  little,  if 
it  is  made  to  mean  simply  '  that  the  Searcher  of  hearts  knows 
that  the  Spirit  intercedes  in  his  presence  (or  toward  him)  for 
the  saints.'  The  interpretation  adopted  by  our  translators, 
therefore,  is  to  be  preferred.  It  is  more  to  the  apostle's  pur- 
pose if  he  assigns  the  reason  why  God  receives  the  unutterable 
desires  and  longings  of  the  heart  as  true  prayer.  This  indeed 
is  a  consolation  to  believers. 

Verse  28.  And  we  know  all  things  work  together  for  good  to 
them  that  love  Cfod,  &c.  This  may  be  regarded  as  virtually, 
though  not  formally,  an  inference  from  what  Paul  had  taught 
concerning  afflictions.  As  they  are  comparatively  insignificant, 
as<  they  call  forth  the  exercises  of  hope,  and  give  occasion  for 
the  kind  interposition  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  far  from  being  incon- 
sistent with  our  salvation,  they  contribute  to  our  good.  It 
seems,  however,  more  natural  to  consider  the  apostle  as  pre- 
senting the  consideration  contained  in  this  verse,  as  an  addi- 
tional reason  why  the  afflictions  of  this  life  are  not  inconsistent 
with  our  being  the  sons  of  God.  These  afflictions  are  real 
blessings.  All  things,  as  is  usually  the  case  with  such  general 
expressions,  is  to   be  limited  to   the  things  spoken  of  in  the 


ROMANS  VIII.  28.  441 

context,  i.  e.,  the  sufferings  of  the  present  time.  See  1  Cor. 
ii.  15,  where  the  spiritual  man  is  said  to  understand  "  all 
things;"  Col.  i,  20,  where  Christ  is  said  to  reconcile  "all 
things  unto  God;"  and  Eph.  i.  10,  with  many  other  similar 
passages.  Of  course  it  is  not  intended  that  other  events, 
besides  afflictions,  do  not  work  together  for  the  good  of  Chris- 
tians, but  merely  that  the  apostle  is  here  speaking  of  the  suf- 
ferings of  believers.  "  Tenendum  est,  Paulum  non  nisi  de  rebus 
adversis  loqui :  acsi  dixisset  Divinitus  sic  temperari  quaecunque 
Sanctis  accidunt,  ut,  quod  mundus  noxium  esse  putat,  exitus 
utile  esse  demonstret.  Nam  tametsi  verum  est,  quod  ait 
Augustinus,  peccata  quoque  sua,  ordinante  Dei  providentia, 
Sanctis  adeo  non  nocere,  ut  potius  eorum  saluti  inserviant:  ad 
hunc  tamen  locum  non  pertinet,  ubi  de  cruce  agitur." — Calvin. 
Those  to  whom  afflictions  are  a  real  blessing  are  described, 
first,  as  tliose  who  love  God;  and  secondly,  as  those  who  are 
called  according  to  his  purpose.  The  former  of  these  clauses 
describes  the  character  of  the  persons  intended,  thei/  love  (rod, 
which  is  a  comprehensive  expression  for  all  the  exercises  of 
genuine  religion.  The  latter  clause  declares  a  fact,  with  regard 
to  all  such,  which  has  a  most  important  bearing  on  the  apostle's 
great  object  in  this  chapter,  thei/  are  called  according  to  his 
purpose.  The  word  called,  as  remarked  above,  (i.  7,)  is  never, 
in  the  epistles  of  the  New  Testament,  applied  to  those  who  are 
the  recipients  of  the  mere  external  invitation  of  the  gospel.  It 
always  means  effectually  called,  i.  e.,  it  is  ahvays  applied  to 
those  who  are  really  brought  to  accept  of  the  blessings  to  which 
they  are  invited.  1  Cor.  i.  24,  "But  to  those  who  are  called," 
i.  e.,  to  true  Christians.  Jude  1,  "  To  those  who  are  sanctified 
by  God  the  Father,  and  are  preserved  in  Jesus  Christ,  and 
called,"  1  Cor.  i.  2,  &c.  The  word  is,  therefore,  often  equiva- 
lent with  chosen,  as  in  the  phrase  "called  an  apostle,"  1  Cor. 
i.  1,  Rom.  i.  1;  and  "called  of  Jesus  Christ,"  Rom.  i.  6. 
And  thus  in  the  Old  Testament,  "  Hearken  unto  me,  0  Jacob, 
and  Israel  my  called,"  Isa.  xlviii.  12;  see  Isa.  xlii.  6,  xlix.  1, 
li.  2.  Those  who  love  God,  therefore,  are  those  whom  he  hath 
chosen  and  called  by  his  grace  to  a  participation  of  the 
Redeemer's  kingdom.  This  call  is  not  according  to  the  merits 
of  men,  but  according  to  the  divine  purpose.      "Who  hath 


442  ROMANS  VIII.  12—28. 

saved  us,  and  called  us  with  a  holy  calling,  not  according  to 
our  works,  but  according  to  his  own  purpose  and  grace,  which 
was  given  us  in  Christ  Jesus  before  the  world  began."  2  Tim. 
i.  9,  Eph.  i.  11,  Rom.  ix.  11.  The  design  of  the  apostle,  in 
the  introduction  of  this  clause,  seems  to  have  been  twofold. 
First,  to  show,  according  to  his  usual  manner,  that  the  fact 
that  some  men  love  God  is  to  be  attributed  to  his  sovereign 
grace,  and  not  to  themselves;  and,  secondly,  that  if  men  are 
called,  according  to  the  eternal  purpose  of  God,  their  salvation 
is  secure.  By  this  latter  idea,  this  clause  is  associated  with 
the  passage  that  follows,  and  with  the  general  object  of  the 
chapter.  That  the  calling  of  men  does  secure  their  salvation, 
is  proved  in  verses  29,  30. 


DOCTRINE. 

1.  True  Christians  are  the  sons  of  God,  objects  of  his  affec- 
tion, partakers  of  his  moral  nature,  and  heirs  of  his  kingdom, 
ver.  14. 

2.  The  relation  of  God  to  us  is  necessarily  the  counterpart 
of  ours  to  him.  If  we  feel  as  friends  to  him,  he  feels  as  a 
friend  towards  us  ;  if  our  sentiment's  are  filial,  his  are  parental, 
ver.  15. 

3.  God,  who  is  every  where  present  and  active,  manifests 
his  presence,  and  communicates  with  his  creatures  in  a  manner 
accordant  with  their  nature,  although  in  a  way  that  is  inscruta- 
ble, ver.  16. 

4.  Assurance  of  salvation  has  a  twofold  foundation,  the 
experience  of  those  affections  which  are  the  evidences  of  true 
piety,  and  the  witness  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  latter  can  never 
be  separated  from  the  former ;  for  the  Spirit  can  never  testify 
to  what  is  not  the  truth.  He  can  never  assure  an  enemy  that 
he  is  a  child  of  God,  ver.  16. 

5.  Union  with  Christ  is  the  source  of  all  our  blessings  of 
justification  and  sanctification,  as  taught  in  the  previous  chap- 
ters, and  of  salvation,  as  taught  in  this,  ver.  17. 

6.  Afflictions  are  not  inconsistent  with  the  divine  favour,  nor 
with  our  being  the  sons  of  God,  vs.  18 — 25. 

7.  The  future  glory  of  the  saints  must  be  inconceivably  great, 


ROMANS  VIII.  12—28.  443 

if  the  whole  creation,  from  the  beginning  of  the  world,  groans 
and  longs  for  its  manifestation,  vs.  19 — 23. 

8.  The  curse  consequent  on  the  fall  has  affected  the  state  of 
the  external  world.  The  consummation  of  the  work  of  redemp- 
tion may  be  attended  with  its  regeneration,  vs.  20 — 22. 

9.  The  present  influences  of  the  Spirit  are  first  fruits  of  the 
inheritance  of  the  saints ;  the  same  in  kind  with  the  blessings 
of  the  future  state,  though  less  in  degree.  They  are  a  pledge 
of  future  blessedness,  and  always  produce  an  earnest  longing  for 
the  fruition  of  the  full  inheritance,  ver.  23. 

10.  As,  for  wise  reasons,  salvation  is  not  immediately  conse- 
quent on  regeneration,  hope,  which  is  the  joyful  expectation 
of  future  good,  becomes  the  duty,  solace,  and  support  of  the 
Christian,  vs.  24,  25. 

11.  The  Holy  Spirit  is  our  Paraclete  (John  xiv.  16)  or  advo- 
cate, we  are  his  clients,  we  know  not  how  to  plead  our  own 
cause,  but  he  dictates  to  us  what  we  ought  to  say.  This  office 
of  the  Spirit  ought  to  be  recognised,  and  gratefully  acknow- 
ledged, ver.  26. 

12.  Prayer,  to  be  acceptable,  must  be  according  to  the  will 
of  God,  and  it  always  is  so  when  it  is  dictated  or  excited  by  the 
Holy  Spirit,  ver.  27. 

13.  All  events  are  under  the  control  of  God ;  and  even  the 
greatest  afflictions  are  productive  of  good  to  those  who  love 
him,  ver.  28. 

14.  The  calling  or  conversion  of  men,  involving  so  many  of 
their  free  acts,  is  a  matter  of  divine  purpose,  and  it  occurs  in 
consequence  of  its  being  so,  ver.  28. 

REMARKS. 

1.  If  God,  by  his  Spirit,  condescends  to  dwell  in  us,  it  is  our 
highest  duty  to  allow  ourselves  to  be  governed  or  led  by  him, 
vs.  12,  13. 

2.  It  is  a  contradiction  in  terms  to  profess  to  be  the  sons  of 
God,  if  destitute  of  the  filial  feelings  of  confidence,  affection, 
and  reverence,  ver.  15. 

3.  A  spirit  of  fear,  so  far  from  being  an  evidence  of  piety, 
is  an  evidence  of  the  contrary.  The  filial  spirit  is  the  genuine 
spirit  of  religion,  ver.  15. 

4.  Assurance  of  hope  is  not  fanatical,  but  is  an  attainment 


444  ROMANS  VIII.  12—28. 

which  every  Christian  should  make.  If  the  witness  of  men  is 
received,  the  witness  of  God  is  greater.  As  the  manifestation 
of  God's  love  to  us  is  made  in  exciting  our  love  towards  him, 
so  the  testimony  of  his  Spirit  with  ours,  that  we  are  the  sons 
of  God,  is  made  when  our  filial  feelings  are  in  lively  exercise, 
ver.  16. 

5.  Christians  ought  neither  to  expect  nor  wish  to  escape  suf- 
fering with  Christ,  if  they  are  to  be  partakers  of  his  glory. 
The  former  is  a  preparation  for  the  latter,  ver.  17. 

6.  The  afflictions  of  this  life,  though  in  themselves  not  joyous 
but  grievous,  are  worthy  of  little  regard  in  comparison  with  the 
glory  that  shall  be  revealed  in  us.  To  bear  these  trials 
properly,  we  should  regard  them  as  part  of  the  heritage  of  the 
sons  of  God,  ver.  18. 

7.  As  the  present  state  of  things  is  one  of  bondage  to  cor- 
ruption, as  there  is  a  dreadful  pressure  of  sin  and  misery  on  the 
whole  creation,  we  should  not  regard  the  world  as  our  home, 
but  desire  deliverance  from  this  bondage,  and  introduction  into 
the  liberty  of  the  children  of  God,  vs.  19 — 22. 

8.  It  is  characteristic  of  genuine  piety  to  have  exalted  con- 
ceptions of  future  blessedness,  and  earnest  longings  after  it. 
Those,  therefore,  who  are  contented  with  the  world  and  indif- 
ferent about  heaven,  can  hardly  possess  the  first  fruits  of  the 
Spirit,  ver.  23. 

9.  Hope  and  patience  are  always  united.  If  we  have  a  well- 
founded  hope  of  heaven,  then  do  we  with  patience  and  fortitude 
wait  for  it.  This  believing  resignation  and  joyful  expectation 
of  the  promises,  are  peculiarly  pleasing  in  the  sight  of  God  and 
honourable  to  religion,  vs.  24,  25. 

10.  How  wonderful  the  condescension  of  the  Holy  Spirit ! 
How  great  his  kindness  in  teaching  us,  as  a  parent  his  children, 
how  to  pray  and  what  to  pray  for !  How  abundant  the  conso- 
lation thus  afibrded  to  the  pious  in  the  assurance  that  their 
prayers  shall  be  heard,  vs.  26,  27. 

11.  Those  who  are  in  Christ,  who  love  God,  may  repose  in 
perfect  security  beneath  the  shadow  of  his  wings.  All  things 
shall  work  together  for  their  good,  because  all  things  are  under 
the  control  of  Him  who  has  called  them  to  the  possession  of 
eternal  life  according  to  his  own  purpose,  ver.  28. 


ROMANS  VIII.  29.  445 


ROMANS  VIII.  29—39. 

ANALYSIS. 

This  section  contains  the  exhibition  of  two  additional  argu- 
ments in  favour  of  the  safety  of  believers.  The  first  of  these 
is  founded  on  the  decree  or  purpose  of  God,  vs.  29 — 30 ;  and 
the  second  on  his  infinite  and  unchanging  love,  vs.  31 — 39. 
In  his  description  of  those  with  regard  to  whom  all  things  shall 
work  together  for  good,  Paul  had  just  said  that  they  are 
such  who  are  called  or  converted  in  execution  of  a  previous 
purpose  of  God,  ver.  28.  If  this  is  the  case,  the  salvation  of 
believers  is  secure,  because  the  plan  on  which  God  acts  is  con- 
nected in  all  its  parts ;  whom  he  foreknows,  he  predestinates, 
calls,  justifies,  and  glorifies.  Those,  therefore,  who  are  called, 
shall  certainly  be  saved,  vs.  29,  30.  Secondly,  if  God  is  for 
us,  who  can  be  against  us?  If  God  so  loved  us  as  to  give  his 
Son  for  us,  he  will  certainly  save  us,  vs.  31,  32.  This  love  has 
already  secured  our  justification,  and  has  made  abundant  pro- 
vision for  the  supply  of  all  our  wants,  vs.  33,  34. 

The  triumphant  conclusion  from  all  these  arguments,  that 
nothing  shall  separate  us  from  the  love  of  Christ,  but  that  we 
shall  be  more  than  conquerors  over  all  enemies  and  diflSculties, 
is  given  in  vs.  35 — 39. 

COMMENTARY. 

Verse  29.  For  whom  he  did  foreknow,  he  also  did  predes- 
tinate, &c.  The  connection  of  this  verse  with  the  preceding, 
and  the  force  of  for,  appears  from  what  has  already  been  said. 
Believers  are  called  in  accordance  with  a  settled  plan  and 
purpose  of  God,  for  whom  he  calls  he  had  previously  predes- 
tinated :  and  as  all  the  several  steps  or  stages  of  our  salvation 
are  included  in  this  plan  of  the  unchanging  God,  if  we  are  pre- 
destinated and  called,  we  shall  be  justified  and  glorified.  Or 
the  connecting  idea  is  this :  All  things  must  work  together  for 
good  to  those  who  love  God,  for  the  plan  of  God  cannot  fail ; 
those  whom  he  has  called  into  this  state  of  reconciliation,  whom 


446  ROMANS  VIII.  29. 

he  has  made  to  love  him,  he  will  assuredly  bring  to  the  glory 
prepared  for  his  people. 

Whom  he  did  forehnow.  As  the  words  to  know  and  fore- 
know are  used  in  three  diJBferent  senses,  applicable  to  the  present 
passage,  there  is  considerable  diversity  of  opinion  which  should 
be  preferred.  The  word  may  express  prescience  simply, 
according  to  its  literal  meaning;  or,  as  to  know  is  often  to 
approve  and  love,  it  may  express  the  idea  of  peculiar  affection 
in  this  case;  or  it  may  mean  to  select  or  determine  upon. 
Among  those  who  adopt  one  or  the  other  of  these  general  views, 
there  is  still  a  great  diversity  as  to  the  manner  in  which  they 
understand  the  passage.  These  opinions  are  too  numerous  to 
be  here  recited. 

As  the  literal  meaning  of  the  word  to  foreknow  gives  no 
adequate  sense,  inasmuch  as  all  men  are  the  objects  of  the 
divine  prescience,  whereas  the  apostle  evidently  designed  to 
express  by  the  word  something  that  could  be  asserted  only  of  a 
particular  class;  those  who  adopt  this  meaning  here  supply 
something  to  make  the  sense  complete.  Who  he  foreknew 
would  repent  and  believe,  or  who  would  not  resist  his  divine 
influence,  or  some  such  idea.  There  are  two  objections  to  this 
manner  of  explaining  the  passage.  1.  The  addition  of  this 
clause  is  entirely  gratuitous ;  and,  if  unnecessary,  it  is,  of  course, 
improper.  There  is  no  such  thing  said,  and,  therefore,  it 
should  not  be  assumed,  without  necessity,  to  be  implied.  2.  It 
is  in  direct  contradiction  to  the  apostle's  doctrine.  It  makes 
the  ground  of  our  calling  and  election  to  be  something  in  us, 
our  works ;  whereas  Paul  says  that  such  is  not  the  ground  of 
our  being  chosen.  "Who  hath  called  us  not  according  to  our 
works,  but  according  to  his  own  purpose  and  grace,  &c.," 
2  Tim.  i.  9,  and  Rom.  ix.  11,  where  the  contrary  doctrine  is  not 
only  asserted,  but  proved  and  defended.  To  say  that  faith  as 
distinguished  from  works  is  what  is  foreseen,  and  constitutes 
the  ground  of  election,  does  not  help  the  matter.  For  faith  is 
a  work  or  act,  and  it  is  the  gift  of  God,  the  result  or  effect  of 
election,  and  therefore  not  its  ground. 

The  second  and  third  interpretations  do  not  essentially  differ. 
The  one  is  but  a  modification  of  the  other;  for  whom  God 
peculiarly  loves,  he  does  thereby  distinguish  from  others,  which 


ROMANS  VIII.  29.  44T 

is  in  itself  a  selecting  or  choosing  of  them  from  among  others. 
The  usage  of  the  word  is  favourable  to  either  modification  of 
this  general  idea  of  'preferring.  "  The  people  which  he  fore- 
knew," i.  e.,  loved  or  selected,  Rom.  xi.  2;  "Who  verily  was 
foreordained  (Gr.  foreknown),  i.  e.  fixed  upon,  chosen  before 
the  foundation  of  the  world,"  1  Peter  i.  20,  2  Tim.  ii.  19, 
John  X.  14,  15 ;  see  also  Acts  ii.  23,  1  Peter  i.  2.  The  idea 
therefore,  obviously  is,  that  those  whom  God  peculiarly  loved, 
and  by  thus  loving,  distinguished  or  selected  from  the  rest  of 
mankind ;  or  to  express  both  ideas  in  one  word,  those  whom  he 
elected  he  predestined,  &c. 

It  is  evident,  on  the  one  hand,  that  ■^pdyixoacz  expresses 
something  more  than  the  prescience  of  which  all  men  and  all 
events  are  the  objects,  and,  on  the  other,  something  different 
from  the  7rpoof)caix6(;  (predestination)  expressed  by  the  following 
word:  "Whom  he  foreknew,  them  he  also  predestinated."  The 
predestination  follows,  and  is  grounded  on  the  foreknowledge. 
The  foreknowledge  therefore  expresses  the  act  of  cognition  or 
recognition,  the  fixing,  so  to  speak,  the  mind  upon,  which 
involves  the  idea  of  selection.  If  we  look  over  a  number  of 
objects  with  the  view  of  selecting  some  of  them  for  a  definite 
purpose,  the  first  act  is  to  fix  the  mind  on  some  to  the  neglect 
of  the  others,  and  the  second  is  to  destine  them  to  the  proposed 
end.  So  God  is  represented  as  looking  on  the  fallen  mass  of 
men,  and  fixing  on  some  whom  he  predestines  to  salvation. 
This  is  the  Ttpoyucoffcc;,  the  foreknowledge,  of  which  the  apostle 
here  speaks.  It  is  the  knowing,  fixing  upon,  or  selecting  those 
who  are  to  be  predestinated  to  be  conformed  to  the  image  of 
the  Son  of  God.  Even  De  Wette  says,  Der  Begrifi"  der  unbe- 
dingten  Gnadenwhal  Hegt  hier  klar  vor,  (the  idea  of  sovereign 
election  is  here  clearly  presented.) 

lie  also  did  predestinate  to  he  conformed  to  the  image 
of  his  Son.  To  predestinate  is  to  destine  or  appoint  before- 
hand, as  the  original  word  is  used  in  Acts  iv.  28,  "To  do 
whatsoever  thy  hand  and  counsel  determined  before  to  be 
done;"  "Having  predestinated  us  unto  the  adoption  of 
children,"  Eph.  i.  5;  "Being  predestinated  according  to  the 
purpose  of  Him  who  worketh  all  things  after  the  counsel  of  his 
own  will,"  Eph.  i.  11.     In   all  the  cases  in  which  this   pre- 


448  ROMANS  VIII.  29. 

destination  is  spoken  of,  the  idea  is  distinctly  recognised,  that 
the  ground  of  the  choice  which  it  implies  is  not  in  us.  We  are 
chosen  in  Christ,  or  according  to  the  free  purpose  of  God,  &c. 
This  is  a  /ore-ordination,  a  determination  which  existed  in 
the  divine  mind  long  prior  to  the  occurrence  of  the  event, 
even  before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  Eph.  i.  4;  so  that 
the  occurrences  in  time  are  the  manifestations  of  the  eternal 
purpose  of  God,  and  the  execution  of  the  plan  of  which  they 
form  a  part. 

The  end  to  which  those  whom  God  has  chosen  are  pre- 
destined, is  conformity  to  the  image  of  Ms  Son,  i.  e.,  that  they 
might  be  like  his  Son  in  character  and  destiny.  He  hath 
chosen  us  "that  we  should  be  holy  and  without  blame  before 
him,"  Eph.  i.  4,  iv.  24.  "He  hath  predestined  us  to  the 
adoption,  i.  e.,  to  the  state  of  sons,  Eph.  i.  5.  "As  we  have 
borne  the  image  of  the  earthy,  we  shall  also  bear  the  image 
of  the  heavenly,"  1  Cor.  xv.  49;  see  Phil.  iii.  21,  1  John  iii.  2. 
The  words  <rtjfifji6p(poui;  xr^z  ecxouoc:  too  ulou  abxdb,  express  not 
only  the  general  idea  that  believers  are  to  be  like  Christ,  but 
more  definitely,  that  what  Christ  is  we  are  to  be ;  as  He  is  oto^ 
we  are  u\ol\  as  He  was  Iv  iJ-opcpfj  d-too  we  are  to  be  aomxopipoc; 
as  He  assumed  our  nature,  and  thereby  purified  and  exalted  it, 
we  are  to  partake  of  that  purity  and  glory.  We  are  to  have 
the  same  [Ji-opfij  (form)  as  the  ecxcov  of  Christ  has — resemble  him 
as  the  image  answers  to  the  original.  As  Paul,  in  verse  17,  had 
spoken  of  our  suffering  with  Christ,  and  in  the  subsequent  pas- 
sage was  principally  e'mployed  in  showing  that  though  in  this 
respect  we  must  be  like  Christ,  it  was  not  inconsistent  with  our 
being  sons  and  heirs,  so  here,  when  we  are  said  to  be  conformed 
to  the  image  of  Christ,  the  idea  of  our  bearing  the  same  cross 
is  not  to  be  excluded.  We  are  to  be  like  our  Saviour  in  moral 
character,  in  our  present  sufferings  and  future  glory.  As  this 
conformity  to  Christ  includes  our  moral  likeness  to  him,  and  as 
this  embraces  all  that  is  good  in  us,  it  is  clear  that  no  supposed 
excellence  originating  from  our  own  resources,  can  be  the 
ground  of  our  being  chosen  as  God's  people,  since  this  excel- 
lence is  included  in  the  end  to  which  we  are  predestined.  "  I 
remark  here  in  passing,"  says  Olshausen,  "  that  according  to 
Paul's  doctrine,  there  is  a  praedestmatio  sanctorum  in  the  strict 


ROMANS  VIII.  30.  449 

sense  of  the  word ;  that  is,  that  God  does  not  foreknow  those 
who  by  their  own  decision  will  become  holy,  but  he  himself 
creates  that  decision  in  them.  In  TipoycvcoayMv  the  divine 
knowledge,  and  in  rrpoofjl^ecu  the  divine  will,  (both  of  which 
are  included  in  the  Ttpo&sfTf^,)  are  expressed." 

That  he  might  he  the  first-born  among  many  brethren.  This 
clause  may  express  the  design,  or  merely  the  result  of  what 
had  just  been  said.  '  God  predestinated  us  to  be  sons,  in  order 
that  Christ  might  be,'  &c.,  or  '  He  made  us  his  sons,  hence 
Christ  is,'  &c.  The  former  is  on  every  account  to  be  preferred. 
It  is  not  merely  an  unintended  result,  but  the  great  end  con- 
templated in  the  predestination  of  God's  people.  That  end  is 
the  glory  and  exaltation  of  Christ.  The  purpose  of  God  in  the 
salvation  of  men,  was  not  mainly  that  men  should  be  holy  and 
happy,  but  that  through  their  holiness  and  happiness  his  glory, 
in  the  person  of  the  Son,  should  be  displayed,  in  the  ages  to 
come,  to  principalities  and  powers.  Christ,  therefore,  is  the 
central  point  in  the  history  of  the  universe.  His  glory,  as  the 
glory  of  God  in  the  highest  form  of  its  manifestation,  is  the 
great  end  of  creation  and  redemption.  And  this  end,  the 
apostle  teaches,  is  accomplished  by  making  him  the  first-born 
among  many  brethren,  that  is,  by  causing  him  to  stand  as  the 
first-born,  the  head  and  chief,  among  and  over  that  countless 
multitude  who  through  him  are  made  the  sons  of  God.  "  Igi- 
tur,"  says  Calvin,  "sicut  primogenitus  familiae  nomen  sustinet; 
ita  Christus  in  sublimi  gradu  locatur,  non  modo  ut  honore  emi- 
neat  inter  fideles,  sed  etiam  ut  communi  fraternitatis  nota  sub 
se  omnes  contineat." 

Verse  30.  Moreover,  whom  he  did  jyredestinate,  them  he  also 
called.  Those  whom  he  had  thus  foreordained  to  be  conformed 
to  the  image  of  his  Son  in  moral  character,  in  suffering,  and  in 
future  glory,  he  effectually  calls,  i.  e.,  leads  by  the  external 
invitation  of  the  gospel,  and  by  the  eflficacious  operation  of  his 
grace,  to  the  end  to  which  they  are  destined.  That  the  calling 
here  spoken  of  is  not  the  mere  external  call  of  the  gospel,  is 
evident  both  from  the  usage  of  the  word,  and  from  the  neces- 
sity of  the  case ;  see  1  Cor.  i.  9,  "  God  is  faithful  by  whom  ye 
were  called  to  the  fellowship  of  his  Son,"  i.  e.,  effectually 
brought  into  union  with  him.  In  the  same  chapter,  ver.  24, 
29 


450  ROMANS  VIII.  30. 

"  To  those  which  are  called,  Christ  the  power  of  God,"  &c. 
The  called  are  here  expressly  distinguished  from  the  rejecters 
of  the  external  invitation.  1  Cor.  vii,  15,  18,  in  which  chap- 
ter calling  is  repeatedly  put  for  effectual  conversion,  "  Is  any 
man  called,  being  a  servant,"  &c.  Heb.  ix.  15,  "That  they 
which  are  called  may  receive  the  promise  of  eternal  inheri- 
tance." Rom.  ix.  12,  Eph.  iv.  4,  1  Thess.  ii.  12,  and  many 
similar  passages.  This  use  of  the  word,  thus  common  in  the 
New  Testament,  is  obviously  necessary  here,  because  the  apos- 
tle is  speaking  of  a  call  which  is  peculiar  to  those  who  are 
finally  saved.  Whom  he  calls  he  justifies  and  glorifies;  see 
verse  28. 

Whom  he  called^  them  he  also  justified;  and  whom  he  justi- 
fied, them  he  also  glorified.  The  aorist  here  used  may  express 
the  idea  of  frequency.  Whom  he  calls,  he  is  wont  to  justify; 
and  whom  he  is  wont  to  justify,  is  he  accustomed  to  glorify. 
So  that  the  meaning  is  the  same  as  though  the  present  tense 
had  been  used,  'Whom  he  calls,  he  justifies,'  &c.;  see  James 
i.  11,  1  Peter  i.  24,  where  the  same  tense  is  rendered  as  the 
present,  "  The  grass  wither eth,  and  the  flower  thereof  falleth 
away."  Or,  as  this  use  of  the  aorist  is  doubtful,  or  at  least 
unusual,  that  tense  is  employed,  because  Paul  is  speaking  of 
that  God,  who  sees  the  end  from  the  beginning,  and  in  whose 
decree  and  purpose  all  future  events  are  comprehended  and 
fixed;  so  that  in  predestinating  us,  he  at  the  same  time,  in 
efi'ect,  called,  justified,  and  glorified  us,  as  all  these  were 
included  in  his  purpose. 

The  justification  here  spoken  of,  is  doubtless  that  of  which 
the  apostle  has  been  speaking  throughout  the  epistle,  the 
regarding  and  treating  sinners  as  just,  for  the  sake  of  the 
righteousness  of  Christ.  The  blessings  of  grace  are  never 
separated  from  each  other.  Election,  calling,  justification,  and 
salvation  are  indissolubly  united;  and,  therefore,  he  who  has 
clear  evidence  of  his  being  called,  has  the  same  evidence  of  his 
election  and  final  salvation.  This  is  the  very  idea  the  apostle 
means  to  present  for  the  consolation  and  encouragement  of 
believers.  They  have  no  cause  for  despondency  if  the  children 
of  God,  and  called  according  to  his  purpose,  because  nothing 
can  prevent  their  final  salvation. 


ROMANS  VIII.  31.  451. 

Verse  31.  What  shall  we  say  to  these  things?  That  is, 
what  is  the  inference  from  what  has  hitherto  been  said?  If 
Crod  he  for  us,  if  he  has  delivered  us  from  the  law  of  sin  and 
death,  if  he  has  renewed  us  by  his  Spirit  which  dwells  within 
us,  if  he  recognises  us  as  his  children  and  his  heirs,  and  has 
predestinated  us  to  holiness  and  glory,  who  can  be  against  us  ? 
If  God's  love  has  led  to  all  the  good  just  specified,  what  have 
we  to  fear  for.  the  future  ?  He  who  spared  not  his  own  Son, 
will  freely  give  us  all  things.  This  verse  shows  clearly  what 
has  been  the  apostle's  object  from  the  beginning  of  the  chapter. 
He  wished  to  demonstrate  that  to  those  who  accede  to  the  plan 
of  salvation  which  he  taught,  i.  e.,  to  those  who  are  in  Christ 
Jesus,  there  is  no  ground  of  apprehension ;  their  final  salvation 
is  fully  secured.  The  conclusion  of  the  chapter  is  a  recapitu- 
lation of  all  his  former  arguments,  or  rather  the  reduction  of 
them  to  one,  which  comprehends  them  all  in  their  fullest  force; 
God  is  for  us.  He,  as  our  Judge,  is  satisfied ;  as  our  Father, 
he  loves  us ;  as  the  supreme  and  almighty  Controller  of  events, 
who  works  all  things  after  the  counsel  of  his  own  will,  he  has 
determined  to  save  us;  and  as  that  Being,  whose  love  is  as 
unchanging  as  it  is  infinite,  he  allows  nothing  to  separate  his 
children  from  himself. 

It  has  been  objected,  that  if  Paul  had  intended  to  teach  these 
doctrines,  he  would  have  said  that  apostacy  and  sin  cannot 
interfere  with  the  salvation  of  believers.  But  what  is  salvation, 
but  deliverance  from  the  guilt  and  power  of  sin?  It  is,  there- 
fore, included  in  the  very  purpose  and  promise  of  salvation, 
that  its  objects  shall  be  preserved  from  apostacy  and  deadly 
sins.  This  is  the  end  and  essence  of  salvation.  And,  there- 
fore, to  make  Paul  argue  that  God  will  save  us  if  we  do  not 
apostatize,  is  to  make  him  say,  those  shall  be  saved  who  are 
not  lost.  According  to  the  apostle's  doctrine,  holiness  is  so 
.  essential  and  prominent  a  part  of  salvation,  that  it  is  not  so 
much  a  means  to  an  end  as  the  very  end  itself.  It  is  that  to 
which  we  are  predestinated  and  called,  and  therefore  if  the 
promise  of  salvation  does  not  include  the  promise  of  holiness, 
it  includes  nothing.  Hence,  to  ask  whether,  if  one  of  the 
called  should  apostatize  and  live  in  sin,  he  would  still  be  saved, 
is  to  ask,  whether  he  will  be  saved  if  he  is  not  saved.    Nor  can 


452  ROMANS  VIII.  32. 

these  doctrines  be  perverted  to  licentiousness  without  a  com- 
plete denial  of  their  nature.  For  they  not  only  represent  sin 
and  salvation  as  two  things  which  ought  not  to  be  united,  but 
as  utterly  irreconcilable  and  contradictory. 

Verse  32.  He  that  spared  7iot  Ms  own  Son,  &c.  That 
ground  of  confidence  and  security  which  includes  all  others,  is 
the  love  of  God ;  and  that  exhibition  of  divine  love  which  sur- 
passes and  secures  all  others,  is  the  gift  of  his  own  Son.  Paul 
having  spoken  of  Christians  as  being  God's  sons  by  adoption, 
was  led  to  designate  Christ  as  his  own  peculiar  Son,  in  a  sense 
in  which  neither  angels  (Heb.  i.  5)  nor  men  can  be  so  called. 
That  this  is  the  meaning  of  the  phrase  is  evident,  1.  Because 
this  is  its  proper  force ;  otvn  Son  being  opposed  to  adopted 
sons.  An  antithesis,  expressed  or  implied,  is  always  involved 
in  the  use  of  the  word  l'3co^,  see  Acts  ii.  6,  Rom.  xi.  24,  xiv.  4, 
Tit.  i.  12.  The  Jews,  Ave  are  told,  took  up  stones  to  stone  our 
Lord,  because  Ttavepa  idcoi^  iXsye  rbv  0e6u,  thus  making  himself 
equal  with  God.  Christ  is  in  such  a  sense  the  Son  of  God, 
that  he  is  of  one  nature  with  him,  the  same  in  substance,  equal 
in  power  and  glory.  2.  Because  the  context  requires  it,  as 
Paul  had  spoken  of  those  who  were  sons  in  a  different  sense 
just  before.  3.  Because  this  apostle,  and  the  other  sacred 
writers,  designate  Christ  as  Son  of  God  in  the  highest  sense,  as 
partaker  of  the  divine  nature ;  see  Rom.  i.  4. 

But  delivered  Mm  up  for  us  all.  He  was  delivered  up  to 
death;  see  Gal.  i.  4,  Rom.  iv.  25,  Isa.  liii.  6,  xxxviii.  13  (in 
the  LXX.,)  and  Matt.  x.  21.  For  us  all;  not  merely  for  our 
benefit,  but  in  our  place.  This  idea,  however,  is  not  expressed 
by  the  peculiar  force  of  the  preposition  bnep,  but  is  implied 
from  the  nature  of  the  case.  The  benefit  secured  by  a  sacri- 
fice is  secured  by  substitution.  It  is  offered  for  the  benefit  of 
the  offender  because  it  is  offered  in  his  place.  There  is  no 
restriction  or  limitation  to  be  put  on  the  word  all  in  this 
verse,  other  than  which  the  context  and  the  analogy  of  Scrip- 
ture imposes.  God,  says  Paul,  gave  up  his  Son  for  us  all; 
whether  he  means  all  rational  creatures,  or  all  men,  or  all 
those  whom  he  determined  thereby  to  redeem,  and  whom  he 
had  foreknown  and  predestinated  to  eternal  life,  depends  on 
what  the  Scripture  elsewhere  teaches  on  the  subject. 


KOMANS  VIII.  33.  453 

Hoiv  shall  he  not  also  {xai)  with  Mm  freely  give  us  all  things. 
If  God  has  done  the  greater,  he  will  not  leave  the  less  undone. 
The  gift  of  Christ  includes  all  other  gifts.  If  God  so  loved  us 
as  to  give  his  Son  for  us,  he  will  certainly  give  the  Holy  Spirit 
to  render  that  gift  effectual.  This  is  presented  as  a  ground  of 
confidence.  '  The  believer  is  assured  of  salvation,  not  because 
he  is  assured  of  his  own  constancy,  but  simply  because  he  is 
assured  of  the  immutability  of  the  divine  love,  and  he  is  assured 
of  its  immutability  because  he  is  assured  of  its  greatness.  Infi- 
nite love  cannot  change.  A  love  which  spared  not  the  eternal 
Son  of  God,  but  freely  gave  him  up,  cannot  fail  of  its  object. 
"  Christus  non  nudus  aut  inanis  ad  nos  missus  est;  sed  coeles- 
tibus  omnibus  thesauris  refertus,  ne  quid  eum  possidentibus  ad 
plenam  felicitatem  desit."    Calvin. 

Verse  33.  Who  shall  lag  any  thing  to  the  charge  of  G-od's 
elect?  This  and  the  following  verse  show  how  fully  the 
security  of  believers  is  provided  for  by  the  plan  of  redemp- 
tion. What  is  it  they  have  to  fear  under  the  government  of  a 
just  and  powerful  God?  There  is  nothing  to  be  dreaded  but 
sin;  if  that  be  pardoned  and  removed,  there  is  nothing  left 
to  fear.  In  the  strongest  manner  possible,  the  apostle  declares 
that  the  sins  of  believers  are  pardoned,  and  shows  the  ground 
on  which  that  pardon  rests.  To  them,  therefore,  there  can  be 
neither  a  disquieting  accusation  nor  condemnation.  Who  can 
Jay  any  thing  ?  zee:  iyxaXiaec ;  the  word  ijxaXeiv  means  in  jus 
vocare,  to  summon  before  the  bar  of  justice.  The  question  is 
in  the  form  of  a  challenge,  and  implies  the  strongest  con- 
fidence that  no  accuser  against  God's  elect  can  appear.  If 
the  law  of  God  be  satisfied,  "the  strength  of  sin,"  its  con- 
demning power,  is  destroyed.  Even  conscience,  though  it 
uji^raids,  does  not  terrify.  It  produces  the  ingenuous  sorrow 
of  children,  and  not  the  despairing  anguish  of  the  convict, 
because  it  sees  that  all  the  ends  of  punishment  are  fully 
answered  in  the  death  of  Christ,  who  bore  our  sins  in  his  own 
body  on  the  tree. 

Cfod's  elect,  i.  e.  those  whom  God  has  chosen ;  see  ver.  29. 
The  word  elect  is  sometimes  used  in  a  secondary  sense  for 
beloved,  which  idea  is  implied  in  its  literal  sense,  as  those 
chosen  are  those  who  are  peculiarly  beloved.     This  sense  may 


454  ROMANS  VIII.  33. 

be  given  to  it  in  1  Peter  ii.  4,  "  elect  and  precious"  may  be 
beloved  and  precious.  And  so  in  a  multitude  of  cases  it  were 
optional  with  a  writer  to  say  chosen  or  beloved,  as  the  one 
implies  the  other.  But  this  does  not  prove  that  chosen  means 
beloved,  or  that  the  idea  of  choice  is  to  be  excluded  from  the 
idea  of  the  word.  The  elect  are  those  whom  God  has  chosen 
out  of  the  world  to  be  the  members  of  his  family  or  kingdom ; 
just  as  under  the  Old  Testament  the  Hebrews,  whom  he  had 
chosen  to  be  his  peculiar  people,  were  his  elect.  Men  may 
dispute  as  to  what  the  elect  are  chosen  to,  and  why  some  are 
chosen  and  not  others.  But  there  seems  to  be  no  ground  for 
dispute  whether  "the  elect"  mean  the  chosen.  This  passage, 
however,  proves  that  those  who  are  elect,  and  whose  election 
has  become  recognised,  are  in  a  state  in  which  they  are  free 
from  condemnation.  No  one  can  lay  any  thing  to  their 
charge.  The  demands  of  justice  as  regards  them  have  been 
satisfied.  This  is  not  true  of  those  who  are  chosen  merely  to 
church  privileges.  There  is  an  election,  therefore,  unto  grace 
and  salvation.  The  elect  are  safe.  This  is  the  grand  theme 
of  this  jubilant  chapter. 

It  is  Gfod  who  justifieth,  Oecx;  b  ocxaiajv.  Editors  and  com- 
mentators are  about  equally  divided  on  the  question  whether 
this  and  the  following  clauses  should  be  taken  interrogatively  or 
affirmatively.  If  the  former,  the  idea  is,  that  as  God  is  the 
being  against  whom  we  have  sinned,  and  who  alone  has  the 
administration  of  justice  in  his  hands,  if  he  does  not  accuse 
there  can  be  no  accuser.  Who  shall  lay  any  thing  against  the 
elect  of  God  ?  Shall  God,  who  justifies  them  ?  In  favour  of 
this  view  is  the  fact,  that  the  questions  in  ver.  32,  and  also  in 
ver.  35,  are  answered  by  questions,  and  hence  the  questions  in 
vs.  33,  34,  are  most  naturally  so  answered.  Nevertheless,  Ulie 
impossibility  of  any  accusation  being  sustained  against  the  elect 
of  God,  is  better  expressed  by  the  affirmation.  It  is  God  who 
is  their  justifier.  If  he  justifies,  who  can  condemn  ?  Besides, 
according  to  the  current  representation  of  Scripture,  God  is 
the  judge,  not  the  accuser.  To  justify,  is  to  declare  the  claims 
of  justice  satisfied.  If  God,  the  supreme  judge,  makes  this 
declaration,  it  must  be  true,  and  it  must  stop  every  mouth. 
No  rational  creature,  no  enlightened  conscience,  can  call  for  the 


ROMANS  VIII.  34.  455 

punishment  of  those  whom  God  justifies.  If  justice  is  not 
satisfied,  there  can  be  no  justification,  no  peace  of  conscience, 
no  security  either  for  salvation  or  for  the  moral  government  of 
God.  The  Bible  knows  nothing  of  mere  pardon.  There  can 
be  no  pardon  except  on  the  ground  of  satisfaction  of  justice.  It 
is  by  declaring  a  man  just,  (that  is,  that  justice  in  relation  to 
him  is  satisfied,)  that  he  is  freed  from  the  penalty  of  the  law, 
and  restored  to  the  favour  of  God. 

Verse  34.  Who  is  he  that  condemneth?  i.  e.,  no  one  can 
condemn.  In  support  of  this  assertion  there  are,  in  this  verse, 
four  conclusive  reasons  presented;  the  death  of  Christ,  his 
resurrection,  his  exaltation,  and  his  intercession.  It  is  Christ 
that  died.  By  his  death,  as  an  atonement  for  our  sins,  all 
ground  of  condemnation  is  removed.  The  death  of  Christ 
could  not  be  a  proof  that  the  believer  cannot  be  condemned, 
unless  his  death  removed  the  ground  of  condemnation ;  and  it 
could  not  remove  the  ground  of  condemnation,  unless  it  satisfied 
the  demands  of  justice.  His  death,  therefore,  was  a  satisfac- 
tion, and  not  merely  an  exhibition  of  love,  or  a  didactic  symbol 
meant  to  impress  some  moral  truth.  Yea,  rather,  that  is  risen 
again.  The  resurrection  of  Christ,  as  the  evidence  of  the 
sacrifice  of  his  death  being  accepted,  and  of  the  validity  of  all 
his  claims,  is  a  much  more  decisive  proof  of  the  security  of  all 
who  trust  in  him,  than  his  death  could  be.  See  on  chap.  i.  4, 
iv.  25,  Acts  xvii.  31,  1  Cor.  xv.  17,  &c. 

WJio  is  even  at  the  right  hand  of  G-od,  i.  e.,  is  associated 
with  God  in  his  universal  dominion.  Psalm  ex.  1,  "  Sit  thou  on 
my  right  hand,"  i.  e.,  share  my  throne;  Eph.  i.  20,  Rev.  iii.  21. 
"As  I  also  overcame  and  am  set  down  with  my  Father  in  his 
throne."  Heb.  i.  3,  "Who  sat  down  at  the  right  hand  of  the 
majesty  on  high."  From  these  and  other  passages  in  their 
connection,  it  is  evident  that  Christ  is  exalted  to  universal 
dominion,  all  power  in  heaven  and  earth  is  given  into  his 
hands.  If  this  is  the  case,  how  great  the  security  it  afibrds 
the  believer !  He  who  is  engaged  to  efiect  his  salvation  is  the 
Director  of  all  events  and  of  all  worlds. 

Who  also  maketh  intercession  for  us,  i.  e.,  who  acts  as  our 
advocate,  pleads  our  cause  before  God,  presents  those  consid-- 
erations  which  secure  for  us  pardon  and  the  continued  supply 


456  ROMANS  VIII.  35. 

of  the  divine  grace ;  see  on  ver.  26,  Heb.  vii.  25,  ix.  24,  1  John 
ii.  1.  Christ,  as  seated  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  and  invested 
with  universal  dominion,  is  able  to  save ;  his  interceding  for  us 
is  the  evidence  that  he  is  willing  to  save — willing  not  only  in 
the  sense  of  being  disposed  to,  but  in  the  sense  of  purposing. 
He  intends  to  save  those  who  put  their  trust  in  him,  and  there- 
fore in  their  behalf  he  presents  before  God  the  merit  of  his 
mediatorial  work,  and  urges  their  salvation  as  the  reward  pro- 
mised him  in  the  covenant  of  redemption.  He  is  our  patron, 
in  the  Roman  sense  of  the  word,  one  who  undertakes  our  case; 
an  advocate,  whom  the  Father  heareth  always.  How  complete, 
then,  the  security  of  those  for  whom  he  pleads!*  Of  course 
this  language  is  figurative;  the  meaning  is,  that  Christ  con- 
tinues since  his  resurrection  and  exaltation  to  secure  for  his 
people  the  benefits  of  his  death,  every  thing  comes  from  God 
through  him,  and  for  his  sake. 

Verse  35.  Who  shall  separate  us  from  the  love  of  Christ? 
This  is  the  last  step  in  the  climax  of  the  apostle's  argument ; 
the  very  summit  of  the  mount  of  confidence,  whence  he  looks 
down  on  his  enemies  as  powerless,  and  forward  and  upward 
with  full  assurance  of  a  final  and  abundant  triumph.  No  one 
can  accuse,  no  one  can  condemn,  no  one  can  separate  us  from 
the  love  of  Christ.  This  last  assurance  gives  permanency  to 
the  value  of  the  other  two. 

The  love  of  Christ  is  clearly  Christ's  love  towards  us,  and 
not  ours  towards  him.  Paul  is  speaking  of  the  great  love  of 
God  towards  us  as  manifested  in  the  gift  of  his  Son,  and  of  the 
love  of  Christ  as  exhibited  in  his  dying,  rising,  and  interceding 
for  us.  This  love,  which  is  so  great,  he  says  is  unchangeable. 
Besides,  the  apostle's  object  in  the  whole  chapter  is  to  console 
and  confirm  the  confidence  of  believers.  The  interpretation 
just  mentioned  is  not  in  accordance  with  this  object.  It  is  no 
ground  of  confidence  to  assert,  or  even  to  feel,  that  we  will 
never  forsake  Christ,  but  it  is  the  strongest  ground  of  assurance 

*  "Porro  banc  intercessionem  carnali  sensu  ne  metriamur:  Non  enim  cogi- 
tandus  est  supples,  flexis  genibus,  manibus  expansis  Patrem  deprecari ;  sed 
quia  apparet  ipse  assidue  cum  morte  et  resurrectione  sua,  quae  vice  sunt 
aeternae  intercessionis,  et  vivae  orationis  efficaciam  habent,  ut  Patrem  nobis 
concilient,  atque  exorabilem  reddant,  merito  dicitur  intercedere." — Calvin. 


ROMANS  VIII.  36.  457 

to  be  convinced  that  his  love  will  never  change.  And,  more- 
over, verse  39  requires  this  interpretation;  for  there  Paul 
expresses  the  same  sentiment  in  language  which  cannot  be 
misunderstood.  "No  creature,"  he  sajs,  "shall  be  able  to 
separate  us  from  the  love  of  God,  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus." 
This  is  evidently  God's  love  towards  us.  The  great  difficulty 
with  many  Christians  is  that  they  cannot  persuade  themselves 
that  Christ  (or  God)  loves  them;  and  the  reason  why  they 
cannot  feel  confident  of  the  love  of  God,  is,  that  they  know 
they  do  not  deserve  his  love,  on  the  contrary,  that  they  are  in 
the  highest  degree  unlovely.  How  can  the  infinitely  pure  God 
love  those  who  are  defiled  with  sin,  who  are  proud,  selfish,  dis- 
contented, ungrateful,  disobedient?  This,  indeed,  is  hard  to 
believe.  But  it  is  the  very  thing  we  are  required  to  believe, 
not  only  as  the  condition  of  peace  and  hope,  but  as  the  condi- 
tion of  salvation.  If  our  hope  of  God's  mercy  and  love  is 
founded  on  our  own  goodness  or  attractiveness,  it  is  a  false 
hope.  We  must  believe  that  his  love  is  gratuitous,  mysterious, 
without  any  known  or  conceivable  cause,  certainly  without  the 
cause  of  loveliness  in  its  object ;  that  it  is,  in  short,  what  it  is 
so  often  declared  to  be  in  the  Bible,  analogous  to  the  love  of  a 
parent  for  his  child.  A  father's  or  mother's  love  is  indepen- 
dent of  the  attractiveness  of  its  object,  and  often  in  spite  of  its 
deformity. 

Shall  tribulation,  or  distress,  or  persecution,  &c.  This  is 
merely  an  amplification  of  the  preceding  idea.  Nothing  shall 
separate  us  from  the  love  of  Christ,  neither  tribulation,  nor 
distress,  nor  persecution,  &c.  That  is,  whatever  we  may  be 
called  upon  to  sufi'er  in  this  life,  nothing  can  deprive  us  of  the 
love  of  him  who  died  for  us,  and  who  now  lives  to  plead  our 
cause  in  heaven ;  and,  therefore,  these  afflictions,  and  all  other 
difficulties,  are  enemies  we  may  despise.  "  Sicut  enim  nebulae 
quamvis  liquidum  solis  conspectum  obscurent,  non  tamen  ejus 
fulgore  in  totum  nos  privant:  sic  Deus  in  rebus  adversis  per 
caliginem  emittit  gratiae  suae  radios,  nequa  tentatio  despera- 
tione  nos  obruat :  imo  fides  nostra  promissionibus  Dei  tanquam 
alis  fulta  sursum  in  coelos  per  media  obstacula  penetrare  debet." 
Calvin. 

Verse  36.  As  it  is  written,  for  thy  saJce  we  are  killed  all  the 


458  ROMANS  VIII.  37—39. 

day  long,  &c.  A  quotation  from  Psalm  xliv.  22,  agreeably  to 
tlie  Septuagint  translation.  The  previous  verse  of  course 
implied  that  believers  should  be  exposed  to  many  afflictions, 
to  famine,  nakedness,  and  the  sword ;  this,  Paul  would  say,  is 
in  accordance  with  the  experience  of  the  pious  in  all  ages.  We 
suffer,  as  it  is  recorded  of  the  Old  Testament  saints,  that  they 
suffered. 

Verse  87.  Nay,  in  all  these  things  we  are  more  than  con- 
querors, &c.  This  verse  is  connected  with  the  35th.  '  So  far 
from  these  afflictions  separating  us  from  the  love  of  Christ, 
they  are  more  than  conquered.'  That  is,  they  are  not  only 
deprived  of  all  power  to  do  us  harm,  they  minister  to  our  good, 
they  swell  the  glory  of  our  victory.  Through  him  that  loved 
us.  The  triumph  which  the  apostle  looked  for  was  not  to  be 
effected  by  his  own  strength  or  perseverance,  but  by  the  grace 
and  power  of  the  Hedeemer.  1  Cor.  xv.  10,  Gal.  ii.  20,  Philip, 
iv.  13,  "  I  can  do  all  things  through  Christ  which  strengthen- 
eth  me." 

Verses  38,  39.  In  these  verses  the  confidence  of  the  apostle 
is  expressed  in  the  strongest  language.  He  heaps  words 
together  in  the  effort  to  set  forth  fully  the  absolute  inability  of 
all  created  things,  separately  or  united,  to  frustrate  the  pur- 
pose of  God,  or  to  turn  away  his  love  from  those  whom  he  has 
determined  to  save. 

I'or  I  am  'persuaded,  that  neither  death,  nor  life,  &c.  It  is 
somewhat  doubtful  how  far  the  apostle  intended  to  express 
distinct  ideas  by  the  several  words  here  used.  The  enumera- 
tion is  by  some  considered  as  expressing  the  general  idea  that 
nothing  in  the  universe  can  injure  believers,  the  detail  being 
designed  merely  as  amplification.  This,  however,  is  not  very 
probable.  The  former  view  is  to  be  preferred.  Neither  death. 
That  is,  though  cut  off  in  this  world,  their  connection  with 
Christ  is  not  thereby  destroyed.  "  They  shall  never  perish, 
neither  shall  any  pluck  them  out  of  my  hand,"  John  x.  28. 
Nor  life,  neither  its  blandishments  nor  its  trials.  "Whether 
"we  live,  we  live  unto  the  Lord,  or  whether  we  die,  we  die  unto 
the  Lord.  So  that  living  or  dying  we  are  the  Lord's."  Rom. 
xiv.  8. 

Nor  angels,   nor  principalities,  nor  poivers.     ,  Principalities 


ROMANS  VIII.  39.  459 

and  powers  are  by  many  understood  here  to  refer  to  the 
authorities  of  this  world  as  distinguished  from  angels.  But  to 
this  it  may  be  objected,  that  Paul  frequently  uses  these  terms  in 
connection  to  designate  the  different  orders  of  spiritual  beings, 
Eph.  i.  21,  Col.  i.  16 ;  and  secondly,  that  corresponding  terms 
were  in  common  use  among  the  Jews  in  this  sense.  It  is 
probable,  from  the  nature  of  the  passage,  that  this  clause  is  to 
be  taken  generally,  without  any  specific  reference  to  either  good 
or  bad  angels  as  such.  'No  superhuman  power,  no  angel,  how- 
ever mighty,  shall  ever  be  able  to  separate  us  from  the  love  of 
God.'  Neither  tilings  present,  nor  things  to  come.  Nothing  in 
this  life,  nor  in  the  future ;  no  present  or  future  event,  &c. 

Verse  39.  Nor  height,  nor  depth.  These  words  have  been 
very  variously  explained.  That  interpretation  which  seems,  on 
the  whole,  most  consistent  with  scriptural  usage  and  the  con- 
text, is  that  which  makes  the  terms  equivalent  to  heaven  and 
earth.  '  Nothing  in  heaven  or  earth ;'  see  Eph.  iv.  8,  Isa.  vii.  11, 
"Ask  it  either  in  the  depth  or  the  height  above,"  &c.,  &c.  Nor 
any  other  creature.  Although  the  preceding  enumeration  had 
been  so  minute,  the  apostle,  as  if  to  prevent  despondency  having 
the  possibility  of  a  foothold,  adds  this  all-comprehending  speci- 
fication, no  created  thing  shall  be  able  to  separate  us  from  the 
love  of  God.  This  love  of  God,  which  is  declared  to  be  thus 
unchangeable,  is  extended  towards  us  only  on  account  of  our 
connection  with  Christ,  and  therefore  the  apostle  adds,  which 
is  in  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord;  see  Eph.  i.  6,  2  Tim.  i.  9. 

DOCTRINE. 

1.  God  chooses  certain  individuals  and  predestinates  them  to 
eternal  life.  The  ground  of  this  choice  is  his  own  sovereign 
pleasure ;  the  end  to  which  the  elect  are  predestinated,  is  con- 
formity to  Jesus  Christ,  both  in  character  and  destiny,  ver.  29. 

2.  Those  who  are  thus  chosen  shall  certainly  be  saved, 
yer.  30. 

3.  The  only  evidence  of  election  is  effectual  calling,  that  is, 
the  production  of  holiness.  And  the  only  evidence  of  the 
genuineness  of  this  call  and  the  certainty  of  our  peseverance, 
is  a  patient  continuance  in  well  doing,  vs.  29,  30. 


460  ROMANS  VIII.  29—39. 

4.  The  love  of  God,  and  not  human  merit  or  power,  is  the 
proper  ground  of  confidence.  This  love  is  infinitely  great,  as 
is  manifested  by  the  gift  of  God's  own  Son;  and  it  is  unchange- 
able, as  the  apostle  strongly  asserts,  vs.  31 — 39. 

5.  The  gift  of  Christ  is  not  the  result  of  the  mere  general 
love  of  God  to  the  human  family,  but  also  of  special  love  to  his 
own  people,  ver.  32. 

6.  Hope  of  pardon  and  eternal  life  should  rest  on  the  death, 
the  resurrection,  universal  dominion,  and  intercession  of  the 
Son  of  God,  ver.  34. 

7.  Trials  and  afflictions  of  every  kind  have  been  the  portion 
of  the  people  of  God  in  all  ages ;  as  they  cannot  destroy  the 
love  of  Christ  towards  us,  they  ought  not  to  shake  our  love 
towards  him,  ver.  35. 

8.  The  whole  universe,  with  all  that  it  contains,  as  far  as  it 
is  good,  is  the  friend  and  ally  of  the  Christian ;  as  far  as  it  is 
evil,  it  is  a  more  than  conquered  foe,  vs.  35 — 39. 

9.  The  love  of  God,  infinite  and  unchangeable  as  it  is,  is 
manifested  to  sinners  only  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord, 
ver.  39. 

REMARKS. 

1.  The  plan  of  redemption,  while  it  leaves  no  room  for 
despondency,  affords  no  pretence  for  presumption.  Those 
whom  God  loves  he  loves  unchangeably ;  but  it  is  not  on  the 
ground  of  their  peculiar  excellence,  nor  can  this  love  be 
extended  towards  those  who  live  in  sin,  vs.  29 — 39. 

2.  As  there  is  a  beautiful  harmony  and  necessary  connection 
between  the  several  doctrines  of  grace,  between  election,  pre- 
destination, calling,  justification,  and  glorification,  so  must  there 
be  a  like  harmony  in  the  character  of  the  Christian.  He 
cannot  experience  the  joy  and  confidence  flowing  from  his 
election,  without  the  humility  which  the  consideration  of  its 
being  gratuitous  must  produce ;  nor  can  he  have  the  peace  of 
one  who  is  justified,  without  the  holiness  of  one  who  is  called, 
vs.  29,  30. 

3.  As  Christ  is  the  first  born  or  head  among  many  brethren, 
all  true  Christians  must  love  him  supremely,  and  each  other  as 


ROMANS  VIII.  29—39.  461 

members  of  the  same  family.     Unless  we  have  this  love,  we 
do  not  belong  to  this  sacred  brotherhood,  ver.  29. 

4.  If  the  love  of  God  is  so  great  and  constant,  it  is  a  great 
sin  to  distrust  or  doubt  it,  vs.  30 — 39. 

5.  Believers  need  not  be  concerned  if  they  are  condemned 
by  the  world,  since  God  justifies  them,  vs.  33,  34, 

6.  If  God  spared  not  his  own  Son,  in  order  to  effect  our 
salvation,  what  sacrifice  on  our  part  can  be  considered  great,  as 
a  return  for  such  love,  or  as  a  means  of  securing  the  salvation 
of  others,  ver.  32. 

7.  The  true  method  to  drive  away  despondency,  is  believing 
apprehensions  of  the  scriptural  grounds  of  hope,  viz.,  the  love 
of  God,  the  death  of  Christ,  his  resurrection,  his  universal 
dominion  and  his  intercession,  ver.  34. 

8.  Though  the  whole  universe  were  encamped  against  the 
solitary  Christian,  he  would  still  come  off  more  than  conqueror, 
vs.  35—39. 

9.  Afflictions  and  trials  are  not  to  be  fled  from  or  avoided, 
but  overeome,  ver.  37. 

10.  All  strength  to  endure  and  to  conquer  comes  to  us 
through  him  that  loved  us.  Without  him  Ave  can  do  nothing, 
ver.  37. 

11.  How  wonderful,  how  glorious,  how  secure  is  the  gospel ! 
Those  who  are  in  Christ  Jesus  are  as  secure  as  the  love  of  God, 
the  merit,  power,  and  intercession  of  Christ  can  make  them. 
They  are  hedged  around  with  mercy.  They  are  enclosed  in  the 
arms  of  everlasting  love.  "Now  unto  Him  that  is  able  to  keep 
us  from  falling,  and  to  present  us  faultless  before  the  presence 
of  his  glory  with  exceeding  joy;  to  the  only  wise  God  our 
Saviour,  be  glory  and  majesty,  dominion  and  power,  both  now 
and  for  ever.     Amen!" 


462  ROMANS  IX. 


CHAPTEK    IX. 

With  the  eighth  chapter,  the  discussion  of  the  plan  of  salva- 
tion, and  of  its  immediate  consequences,  was  brought  to  a  close. 
The  consideration  of  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles,  and  the 
rejection  of  the  Jews,  commences  with  the  ninth,  and  extends 
to  the  end  of  the  eleventh.  Paul,  in  the  first  place,  shows 
that  God  may  consistently  reject  the  Jews,  and  extend  the 
blessings  of  the  Messiah's  reign  to  the  Gentiles,  ix.  1 — 24; 
and  in  the  second  place,  that  he  has  already  declared  that  such 
was  his  purpose,  vs.  25 — 29.  Agreeably  to  these  prophetic 
declarations,  the  apostle  announces  that  the  Jews  were  cast  off 
and  the  Gentiles  called ;  the  former  having  refused  submission 
to  the  righteousness  of  faith,  and  the  latter  having  been 
obedient,  vs.  30 — 33.  In  the  tenth  chapter,  Paul  shows  the 
necessity  of  this  rejection  of  the  ancient  people  of  God,  and 
vindicates  the  propriety  of  extending  the  invitation  of  the 
gospel  to  the  heathen,  in  accordance  with  the  predictions  of 
the  prophets.  In  the  eleventh,  he  teaches  that  this  rejection 
of  the  Jews  was  neither  total  nor  final.  It  was  not  total,  inas- 
much as  many  Jews  of  that  generation  believed,  and  it  was  not 
final,  as  the  period  approached  when  the  great  body  of  that 
nation  should  acknowledge  Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  and  be  rein- 
grafted  into  their  own  olive  tree.  //So  that  we  have  in  this  and  j  ^ 
the  following  chapters,  1st.  Paul's  lamentation  over  the  rejec- 
tion of  the  Jews,  ix.  1 — 5.  2d.  The  proof  that  God  had  the 
right  to  deal  thus  with  his  ancient  people,  ix.  6 — 29.  3d.  The 
proof  that  the  guilt  of  this  rejection  was  on  the  Jews  them- 
selves, ix.  30 — 33,  and  x.  1 — 21.  4th.  The  consolation  which 
the  promises  and  revealed  purposes  of  God  afford  in  view  of 
this  sad  event. 

CONTENTS. 

In  entering  on  the  discussion  of  the  question  of  the  rejection 
of  the  Jews,  and  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles,  the  apostle  assures 
his  brethren  of  his  love  for  them,  and  of  his  respect  for  their 
national  privileges,  vs.  1 — 5.     That  his  doctrine  on  this  subject 


ROMANS  IX.  1—5.  463 

was  true,  he  argues,  1.  Because  it  was  not  inconsistent  with 
the  promises  of  God,  who  is  perfectly  sovereign  in  the  distribu- 
tion of  his  favours,  vs.  6 — 24.  And  secondly,  because  it  was 
distinctly  predicted  in  their  own  Scriptures,  vs.  25 — 29.  The 
conclusion  from  this  reasoning  is  stated  in  vs.  20 — 33.  The 
Jews  are  rejected  for  their  unbelief,  and  the  Gentiles  admitted 
to  the  Messiah's  kingdom. 


ROMANS  IX.  1—5. 

ANALYSIS. 

As  the  subject  about  to  be  discussed  was  of  all  others  the 
most  painful  and  offensive  to  his  Jewish  brethren,  the  apostle 
approaches  it  with  the  greatest  caution.  He  solemnly  assures 
them  that  he  was  grieved  at  heart  on  their  account;  and  that 
his  love  for  them  was  ardent  and  disinterested,  verses  1 — 3. 
Their  peculiar  privileges  he  acknowledged  and  respected.  They 
were  highly  distinguished  by  all  the  advantages  connected  with 
the  Old  Testament  dispensation,  and,  above  all,  by  the  fact 
that  the  Messiah  was,  according  to  the  flesh,  a  Jew,  verses  4,  5. 

COMMENTARY. 

Verse  1.  I  say  the  truth  in  Christy  I  lie  not,  &c.  There  are 
three  ways  in  which  the  words  in  Christ,  or  by  Christ,  may 
here  be  understood.  1.  They  may  be  considered  as  part  of  the 
formula  of  an  oath,  /  (swear)  by  Christ,  I  speak  the  truth.  But 
in  oaths  the  preposition  ;r/>o'c,  and  not  iu,  is  used.  In  a  few 
cases,  indeed,  where  a  verb  of  swearing  is  used,  the  latter  pre- 
position occurs,  but  not  otherwise.  In  addition  to  this  objec- 
tion, it  may  be  urged  that  no  instance  occurs  of  Paul's  appeal- 
ing to  Christ  in  the  form  of  an  oath.  The  case  which  looks 
most  like  such  an  appeal  is  1  Tim.  v.  21,  "  I  charge  thee  before 
God,  and  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  elect  angels,"  &c. 
But  it  is  evident  from  the  mention  of  the  angels,  that  this  is 
not  of  the  nature  of  an  oath.  Paul  merely  wishes  to  urge 
Timothy  to  act  as  in  the  presence  of  God,  Christ,  and  angels. 
This  interpretation,  therefore,  is  not  to  be  approved.  2.  The 
words  in  Christ  may  be  connected  with  the  pronoun  I.     '■I  in 


464  ROMANS  IX.  1,  2. 

Christy  i.  e.,  as  a  Christian,  or,  '  In  the  consciousness  of  my 
■^  union  with  Christ,  I  declare,'  &c.  So  the  words  are  used  in  a 
multitude  of  cases,  "You  in  Christ,"  "I  in  Christ,"  "We  in 
Christ,"  being  equivalent  to  you^  /,  or  we,  as  Christians,  i.  e., 
considered  as  united  to  Christ.  See  1  Cor.  i.  20,  "  Of  whom 
are  ye  in  Christ,"  i.  e.,  'By  whom  ye  are  Christians,  or  united 
to  Christ;'  Rom.  xvi.  3,  7,  9,  1  Cor.  iii.  1,  and  frequently 
elsewhere.  3.  The  words  may  be  used  adverbially,  and  be 
translated  after  a  Christian  manner.  This  also  is  a  frequent 
use  of  this  and  analogous  phrases.  See  1  Cor.  vii.  39,  "  Only 
in  the  Lord,"  i.  e.,  only  after  a  religious  manner,  in  the  Lord 
being  equivalent  with  in  a  manner  becoming,  or  suited  to  the 
Lord.  Rom.  xvi.  22,  "  I  salute  you  in  the  Lord."  Philip,  ii. 
29,  "Receive  him,  therefore,  in  the  Lord;"  Eph.  vi.  1,  Col. 
iii.  18.  The  sense  of  the  passage  is  much  the  same,  whether 
we  adopt  the  one  or  the  other  of  the  last  two  modes  of  expla- 
nation. Paul  means  to  say  that  he  speaks  in  a  solemn  and 
religious  manner,  as  a  Christian,  conscious  of  his  intimate  rela- 
tion to  Christ. 

I  say  the  truth,  and  lie  not.  This  mode  of  assertion,  first 
affirmatively,  and  then  negatively,  is  common  in  the  Scriptures. 
"Thou  shalt  die,  and  not  live,"  Isaiah  xxxviii.  1.  "He  con- 
fessed, and  denied  not,"  John  i.  20.  There  is  generally  some- 
thing emphatic  in  this  mode  of  speaking.  It  was  a  solemn  and 
formal  assertion  of  his  integrity  which  Paul  here  designed  to 
make.  My  conscience  also  hearing  me  witness;  aufinaprupouarji;, 
my  conscience  bearing  witness  with  my  words.  In  the  Holy 
Ghost.  These  words  are  not  to  be  taken  as  an  oath,  nor  are 
they  to  be  connected  with  the  subject  of  oo  (peodoixac,  '/, 
instructed,  or  influenced  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  lie  not;"  but 
rather  with  aoiJ.p.aprupov(r/^Zt  his  conscience  bore  this  testimony 
guided  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  Spiritu  Sancto  duce  et  moderatore, 
as  Beza  expresses  it. 

Verse  2.  That  I  have  great  heaviness,  &c.  This  it  is  which 
Paul  so  solemnly  asserts.  He  was  not  an  indiflferent  spectator 
of  the  sorrow,  temporal  and  spiritual,  which  was  about  to  come 
on  his  countrymen.  All  their  peculiar  national  advantages, 
and  the  blessings  of  the  Messiah's  kingdom  which  they  had 
wickedly  rejected,  were  to  be  taken  away ;  they  were,  there- 


ROMANS  IX.  3.  465 

fore,  left  ■without  hope,  either  for  this  world  or  the  next.  The 
consideration  of  their  condition  filled  the  apostle  with  great  and 
constant  heaviness.  The  sincerity  and  strength  of  this  sorrow 
for  them  he  asserts  in  the  strongest  terms  in  the  next  verse. 

Verse  3.  For  I  could  wish  that  myself  loere  accursed  from 
Christ  for  my  brethren,  &c.  The  word  anathema  (Attic  avd- 
d^Tjfjia,  Hellenistic  avd&zp.a,)  means  any  thing  consecrated  to 
God,  TO  d.varc&i[JLevov  zcu  dew,  as  Suidas  explains  it.  The 
Attic  form  of  the  word  occurs  in  the  New  Testament  only  in 
Luke  xxi.  5.  In  the  Old  Testament,  the  Hebrew  word  to 
which  it  answers  occurs  very  frequently,  and  probably  the  root 
originally  meant  to  cut  off,  to  separate.  Hence,  the  substantive 
derived  from  it,  meant  something  separated  or  consecrated.  In 
usage,  however,  it  was  applied  only  to  such  things  as  could  not 
be  redeemed,*  and  which,  when  possessed  of  life,  were  to  be 
put  to  death.  It  is  evident  from  the  passages  quoted  in  the 
margin,  that  the  word  usually  designates  a  person  or  thing  set 
apart  to  destruction  on  religious  grounds ;  something  accursed. 

In  the  New  Testament  the  use  of  the  Greek  word  is  very 
nearly  the  same.  The  only  passages  in  which  it  occurs,  besides 
the  one  before  us,  are  the  following ;  Acts  xxiii.  14,  "  We  have 
bound  ourselves  under  a  great  curse,  (we  have  placed  ourselves 
under  an  anathema,)  that  we  will  eat  nothing  until  we  have 
slain  Paul."  The  meaning  of  this  passage  evidently  is,  'We 
have  ilnprecated  on  ourselves   the  curse  of  God,  or  we  have 

*  Levit.  xxvii.  28,  29,  "No  devoted  thing  that  a  man  shall  devote  unto  the 
Lord  of  all  that  he  hath,  both  of  man  and  beast,  and  of  the  field  of  his  posses- 
sion, shall  be  sold  or  redeemed:  every  devoted  thing  (fi'^n  livad-^a)  is  most 
holy  unto  the  Lord.  None  devoted,  -which  shall  be  devoted  from  among  men, 
shall  be  redeemed,  but  shall  surely  be  put  to  death." 

Deut.  vii.  26,  "Neither  shalt  thou  bring  an  abomination  into  thy  house,  lest 
thou  be  a  cursed  thing  [ivd^t/xa.)  like  it,  but  thou  shalt  utterly  detest  it,  and 
utterly  abhor  it;  for  it  is  a  cursed  thing."  The  sacred  writer  Is  here  speak- 
ing of  the  images,  &c.,  of  the  heathen,  ■which  were  devoted  to  destruction. 

Joshua  vi.  17,  "And  the  city  shall  be  (iva'S-s^a)  accursed,  even  it  and  all  that 
is  therein,  to  the  Lord,"  &c.  Verse  18,  "And  ye,  in  any  wise  keep  yourselves 
from  the  accursed  thing,  lest  ye  make  yourselves  accursed,  when  ye  take  of 
the  accursed  thing,  and  make  the  camp  of  Israel  a  curse,  and  trouble  it." 

1  Sam.  XV.  21,  "And  the  people  took  of  the  spoil,  sheep  and  oxen,  the  chief 
of  the  things  which  should  have  been  utterly  destroyed,  &c.  In  Hebrew,  simply 
tt^Hn»  0^  which  the  words  in  italics  are  a  paraphrase. 

30 


466  ROMANS  IX.  3. 

called  upon  him  to  consider  us  as  anathema.'  1  Cor.  xii.  3, 
"No  man  speaking  by  the  Spirit  of  God  calleth  Jesus  accursed 
(anathema);"  1  Cor.  xvi.  22,  "Let  him  be  anathema  mara- 
natha;"  Gal.  i.  8,  9,  "Let  him  be  accursed  (anathema)."  In 
all  these  cases  it  is  clear  that  the  word  is  applied  to  those  who 
were  regarded  as  deservedly  exposed,  or  devoted  to  the  curse 
of  God.  In  this  sense  it  was  used  by  the  early  Christian 
writers,  and  from  them  passed  into  the  use  of  the  church.  "  Let 
him  be  anathema,"  being  the  constant  formula  of  pronouncing 
any  one,  in  the  judgment  of  the  church,  exposed  to  the  divine 
malediction. 

Among  the  later  Jews,  this  word,  or  the  corresponding 
Hebrew  term,  was  used  in  reference  to  the  second  of  the  three 
degrees  into  which  they  divided  excommunication  (see  Buxtorf's 
Rabbinical  Lexicon.)  But  no  analogous  use  of  the  word  occurs 
in  the  Bible.  Such  being  the  meaning  of  this  word  in  the 
Scriptures,  its  application  in  this  case  by  the  apostle  admits  of 
various  explanations.  The  most  common  interpretations  of  the 
passage  are  the  following. 

As  those  men  or  animals  pronounced  anathema  in  the  Old 
Testament  were  to  be  put  to  death,  many  consider  the  apostle 
as  having  that  idea  in  his  mind,  and  meaning  nothing  more 
than  'I  could  wish  to  die  for  my  brethren,'  &c.  But  the 
objections  to  this  interpretation  are  serious.  Even  in  the  Old 
Testament  the  word  expresses  something  more  than  the  idea 
of  devotion  to  death.  An  anathema  was  a  person  devoted  to 
death  as  accursed;  see  the  passages  quoted  above.  And  in  the 
New  Testament  this  latter  idea  is  always  the  prominent  one. 

The  connection  is  also  unfavourable  to  this  interpretation. 
The  phrase  is,  "accursed /rom  Christ.''  How  are  the  words 
from  Christ  to  be  explained?  Some  say  they  should  be  ren- 
dered by  Christ.  'I  could  wish  myself  devoted  to  death  by 
Christ.'  But  this  is  an  unusual  use  of  the  preposition  (cItto) 
which  our  version  correctly  renders  from;  and  the  whole 
expression  is,  besides,  unusual  and  unnatural.  Others,  there- 
fore, say  that  the  passage  should  be  rendered  thus :  '  I  could 
wish  from  Christ,  that  I  might  be  devoted  to  death.'  But  this, 
too,  is  an  unusual  and  forced  construction. 

Others  think  that  Paul  has  reference  here  to  the  Jewish 


ROMANS  IX.  3.  467 

use  of  the  word,  and  means  only  that  he  would  be  willing  to  be 
cut  ofif  from  the  church,  or  excommunicated.  In  this  view  the 
word  Christ  is  commonly  taken  for  the  body  of  Christ,  or  the 
church.  But,  in  the  first  place,  this  is  not  a  scriptural  use  of 
the  word  anathema,  and  is  clearly  inapplicable  to  the  other 
cases  in  which  it  is  used  by  the  apostle ;  and,  in  the  second 
place,  it  gives  a  very  inadequate  sense.  Excommunication 
from  the  church  would  not  be  a  great  evil  in  the  eyes  of  the 
Jews. 

Others  render  the  verb  which,  in  our  version,  is  translated 
'I  could  wish,'  I  did  wish.  The  sense  would  then  be,  'I  have 
great  sorrow  on  account  of  my  brethren,  because  I  can  sympa- 
thize in  their  feelings,  for  I  myself  once  wished  to  be  accursed 
from  Christ  on  their  account.'  But,  in  the  first  place,  had 
Paul  intended  to  express  this  idea,  he  would  have  used  the 
aorist,  the  common  tense  of  narration,  and  not  the  imperfect.* 
2.  It  is  no  objection  to  the  common  translation,  that  the  imper- 
fect indicative,  instead  of  some  form  of  the  optative,  is  here 
used,  and  that,  too,  without  an  optative  particle,  see  Acts  xxv. 
22.  3.  This  interpretation  does  not  give  a  sense  pertinent  to 
the  apostle's  object.  He  is  not  expressing  what  was  his  state 
of  mind  formerly,  but  what  it  was  when  writing.  It  was  no 
proof  of  his  love  for  his  brethren  that  he  once  felt  as  they 
then  did,  but  the  highest  imaginable,  if  the  ordinary  interpre- 
tation be  adopted.  4.  The  language  will  hardly  admit  of  this 
interpretation.  No  Jew  would  express  his  hatred  of  Christ, 
and  his  indifference  to  the  favours  which  he  ofiered,  by  saying 
he  wished  himself  accursed  from  Christ.  Paul  never  so  wished 
himself  before  his  conversion,  for  this  supposes  that  he  recog- 
nised the  power  of  Christ  to  inflict  on  him  the  imprecated  curse, 
and  that  his  displeasure  was  regarded  as  a  great  evil. 

The  common  interpretation,  and  that  which  seems  most 
natural,  is,  '  I  am  grieved  at  heart  for  my  brethren,  for  I  could 
wish  myself  accursed  from  Christ,  that  is,  I  could  be  willing  to 
be  regarded  and  treated  as  anathema,  a  thing  accursed,  for 
their   sakes.'f      That  this   interpretation  suits   the  force   and 

*  That  is,  tih^dfjLyiv  Tron  instead  of  du^^s^w. — Noesselt. 

f  Sensus  est:  optabam  Judaeorum  miseriam  in  meum  caput  conferre,  et 
illorum  loco  esse.  Judaei,  fidem  repudiantes,  erant  anathema  a  Christo. — 
Bengel. 


468  ROMANS  IX.  3. 

meaning  of  the  words,  and  is  agreeable  to  the  context,  must, 
on  all  hands,  be  admitted.  The  only  objection  to  it  is  of  a 
theological  kind.  It  is  said  to  be  inconsistent  with  the  apostle's 
character  to  wish  that  he  should  be  accursed  from  Christ.  But 
to  this  it  may  be  answered,  1.  Paul  does  not  say  that  he  did 
deliberately  and  actually  entertain  such  a  wish.  The  expres- 
sion is  evidently  hypothetical  and  conditional,  '  I  could  wish, 
were  the  thing  allowable,  possible,  or  proper.'  So  far  from 
saying  he  actually  desired  to  be  thus  separated  from  Christ,  he 
impliedly  says  the  very  reverse.  '  I  could  wish  it,  were  it  not 
wrong;  or,  did  it  not  involve  my  being  unholy  as  well  as  mise- 
rable, but  as  such  is  the  case,  the  desire  cannot  be  entertained.' 
This  is  the  proper  force  of  the  imperfect  indicative  when  thus 
used ;  it  implies  the  presence  of  a  condition  which  is  known  to 
be  impossible.  Speaking  of  the  use  of  the  imperfect  i^ouXofxrjv 
in  Acts  XXV.  22,  Dr.  Alexander  says :  "  Most  interpreters,  and 
especially  the  most  exact  philologists  of  modern  times,  explain 
the  Greek  verb,  like  the  similar  imperfect  used  by  Paul  in 
Rom.  ix.  2,  as  the  indirect  expression  of  a  present  wish,  ren- 
dered correctly  in  the  English  version.  The  nice  distinction 
in  Greek  usage,  as  explained  by  these  authorities,  is  that  the 
present  tense  would  have  represented  the  result  as  dependent 
on  the  speaker's  will  (as  in  Rom.  i.  13,  16,  19,  1  Cor.  xvi.  7, 
1  Tim.  ii.  8) ;  the  imperfect  with  the  qualifying  particle  dv 
would  have  meant,  /  could  wish  (but  I  do  not) ;  whereas  this 
precise  form  is  expressive  of  an  actual  and  present  wish,  but 
subject  to  the  will  of  others,  'I  could  wish,  if  it  were  proper,  or 
if  you  have  no  objection.'*  2.  Even  if  the  words  expressed 
more  than  they  actually  do,  and  the  apostle  were  to  be  under- 
stood as  saying  that  he  wished  to  be  cut  off  from  Christ,  yet, 
from  the  nature  of  the  passage,  it  could  fairly  be  understood 
as  meaning  nothing  more  than  that  he  was  willing  to  suffer  the 

*  Buttmann's  Larger  Grammar,  by  Professor  Robinson,  p.  187.  Matthiae, 
sect.  508,  509,  And  Winer's  Grammar,  p.  233,  who  thus  translates  the  pas- 
sage before  us:  "Vellem  ego  (si  fiei'i  posset):  ich  ■wflnschte  (wenn  es  nur 
nicht  unmOglich  wire)."  Tholuck  says:  "Th3  indicative  of  the  imperfect 
expresses  exactly  the  impossibility  of  that  for  which  one  wishes,  on  which 
account  it  is  not,  properly  speaking,  really  wished  at  all.  The  optative  admits 
the  possibility  of  the  thing  wished  for,  and  the  present  supposes  the  certainty 
of  it." 


ROMANS  IX.  4.  469 

utmost  misery  for  the  sake  of  his  brethren.  The  diflBculty 
arises  from  pressing  the  words  too  far,  making  them  express 
definite  ideas,  instead  of  strong  and  indistinct  emotions.  The 
general  idea  is,  that  he  considered  himself  as  nothing,  and  his 
happiness  as  a  matter  of  no  moment  compared  with  the  salva- 
tion of  his  brethren.*  Bi'ethren  according  to  the  flesh.  Paul 
had  two  classes  of  brethren;  those  who  were  with  him  the 
children  of  God  in  Christ ;  these  he  calls  brethren  in  the  Lord^ 
Philip,  i.  14,  holy  brethren,  &c.  The  others  were  those  who 
belonged  to  the  family  of  Abraham.  These  he  calls  brethren 
after  the  flesh,  that  is,  in  virtue  of  natural  descent  from  the 
same  parent.  Philemon  he  addresses  as  his  brother  xal  kv  aapxl 
xal  ku  Kufncv,  both  in  the  flesh  and  in  the  Lord.  The  Bible 
recognises  the  validity  and  rightness  of  all  the  constitutional 
principles  and  impulses  of  our  nature.  It  therefore  approves 
of  parental  and  filial  affection,  and,  as  is  plain  from  this  and 
other  passages,  of  peculiar  love  for  the  people  of  our  own  race 
and  country. 

Verse  4.  The  object  of  the  apostle  in  the  introduction  to 
this  chapter,  contained  in  the  first  five  verses,  is  to  assure  the 
Jews  of  his  love  and  of  his  respect  for  their  peculiar  privileges. 
The  declaration  of  his  love  he  had  just  made;  his  respect  for 
their  advantages  is  expressed  in  the  enumeration  of  them  con- 
tained in  this  verse.  Who  are  Israelites,  i.  e.,  the  peculiar 
people  of  God.  This  includes  all  the  privileges  which  are 
afterwards  mentioned.  The  word  Israel  means  one  who  con- 
tends with  Crod,  or  a  prince  with  God.  Hosea  xii.  3,  "  He 
took  his  brother  by  the  heel  in  the  womb,  and  by  his  strength 
he  had  power  with  God."  As  it  was  given  to  Jacob  as  an 
expression  of  God's  peculiar  favour,  Gen.  xxxii.  28,  its  appli- 
cation to  his  descendants  implied  that  they  too  were  the 
favourites  of  God.  To  whom  pertaineth  the  adoption.  As  Paul 
is  speaking  here  of  the  external  or  natural  Israel,  the  adoption 

*  Utrum  privationem  duntaxat  omnis  boni,  et  destructionem  vel  annihila- 
tionem  sui,  an  etiam  perpessionem  omnis  mali,  eamque  et  in  corpore  et  in 
anima,  et  sempiternam,  optaret,  aut  in  ipso  voti  illius  paroxysrao  intellectui 
suo  observantem  habuerit,  quis  scit,  an  Paulus  ipse  interrogatus  definiret? 
Certe  illud  ego  penitus  apud  ilium  in  pausa  erat:  tantum  alios,  honoris  diviai 
causa,  spectabat. — Bengel. 


/ 


470  ROMANS  IX.  4. 

or  sonship  which  pertained  to  them,  as  such,  must  he  external 
ako,  and  is  very  different  from  that  which  he  had  spoken  of  in 
the  preceding  chapter.  They  were  the  sons  of  God,  i.  e.,  the 
,  objects  of  his  peculiar  favour,  selected  from  the  nations  of  the 
earth  to  be  the  recipients  of  peculiar  blessings,  and  to  stand  in 
a  peculiar  relation  to  God.  Exod.  iv.  22,  "  Thou  shalt  say 
unto  Pharaoh,  Israel  is  my  son,  even  my  first-born;"  Deut. 
xiv.  1,  '^  Ye  are  the  children  of  the  Lord  your  God;"  Jer.  xxxi. 
9,  "I  am  a  father  to  Israel,  and  Ephraim  is  my  first-born."  As 
the  whole  Old  Testament  economy  was  a  type  and  shadow  of 
the  blessings  of  the  New,  so  the  sonship  of  the  Israelites  was 
•--■an  adumbration  of  the  sonship  of  believers.  That  of  the  for- 
mer was  in  itself,  and  as  common  to  all  the  Jews,  only  the 
peculiar  relation  which  they  sustained  to  God  as  partakers  of 
the  blessings  of  the  theocracy.  The  latter,  common  to  all  the 
true  children  of  God  under  any  dispensation,  is  that  relation 
in  which  we  stand  to  God  in  virtue  of  regeneration,  the  indwell- 
ing of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  adoption  into  the  household  of 
God. 

And  the  glory.  These  words  are  variously  explained.  They 
may  be  connected  with  the  preceding,  as  explanatory  of  the 
adoption,  or  as  qualifying  it,  and  the  two  words  be  equivalent 
to  glorious  adoption.  But  as  every  other  specification  in  this 
verse  is  to  be  taken  separately,  so  should  this  be.  Others 
understand  it,  of  the  dignity  and  distinction  of  the  theocratical 
people.  It  was  their  glory  to  be  the  people  of  God.  In  the 
Old  Testament,  however,  that  symbolical  manifestation  of  the 
divine  presence  which  filled  the  tabernacle  and  rested  over  the 
ark,  is  called  the  glory  of  the  Lord.  Exod.  xl.  34,  "  A  cloud 
covered  the  tent  of  the  congregation;  and  the  glory  of  the 
Lord  filled  the  tabernacle;"  Exod.  xxix.  43,  "There  will  I 
meet  with  the  children  of  Israel,  and  the  tabernacle  shall  be 
sanctified  by  my  glory;"  Lev.  xvi.  2,  "I  will  appear  in  the 
cloud  upon  the  mercy-seat;"  1  Kings  viii.  11,  "The  glory  of 
the  Lord  had  filled  the  house  of  the  Lord;"  2  Chron.  v.  14, 
Haggai  ii.  7,  Rev.  xv.  8.  By  the  Jews  this  symbol  was  called 
the  Shekinah,  i.  e.,  the  presence  of  God.  Besides  this,  the 
manifestation  of  God's  presence  in  general  is  called  his  glory; 
Isa.  vi.  4,  "The  whole  earth  is  full  of  his  glory,"  &;c.     It  is 


ROMANS  IX.  5.  471 

probable,  therefore,  that  Paul  intended  by  this  word  to  refer  to 
the  fact  that  God  dwelt  in  a  peculiar  manner  among  the  Jews, 
and  in  various  ways  manifested  his  presence,  as  one  of  their 
peculiar  privileges. 

The  covenants.  The  plural  is  used  because  God  at  various 
times  entered  into  covenant  with  the  Jews  and  their  fore- 
fathers ;  by  which  he  secured  to  them  innumerable  blessings 
and  privileges;  see  Gal.  iii.  16,  17,  Eph.  ii.  12.  The  giving 
of  the  law,  (/^  vofxo&sma)  the  legislation.  The  word  is  some- 
times used  for  the  law  itself  (see  the  Lexicons) ;  it  may  here  be 
taken  strictly,  that  giving  of  the  law,  i.  e.,  the  solemn  and  glo- 
rious annunciation  of  the  divine  will  from  Mount  Sinai.  The 
former  is  the  most  probable ;  because  the  possession  of  the  law 
was  the  grand  distinction  of  the  Jews,  and  one  on  which  they 
peculiarly  relied;  see  chap.  ii.  17.  The  service  means -the 
whole  ritual,  the  pompous  and  impressive  religious  service  of 
the  tabernacle  and  temple.  The  promises  relate,  no  doubt, 
specially  to  the  promises  of  Christ  and  his  kingdom.  This  was 
the  great  inheritance  of  the  nation.  This  was  the  constant 
subject  of  gratulation  and  object  of  hope.  See  Gal.  iii.  16, 
"Now  to  Abraham  and  his  seed  were  the  promises  made;"  ver. 
21,  "Is  the  law  against  the  promises  of  God?"  So  in  other 
places  the  word  promises  is  used  specially  for  the  predictions 
in  reference  to  the  great  redemption,  Acts  xxvi.  6. 

Verse  5.  Whose  are  the  fathers,  and  of  tvhom,  as  concerning 
the  jiesh,  Christ  came,  &c.  The  descent  of  the  Jews  from  men 
so  highly  favoured  of  God  as  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  was 
justly  regarded  as  a  great  distinction.  And  of  whom.  The 
and  here  shows  that  whom  refers,  not  to  the  fathers,  but  to  the 
Israelites,  to  whom  pertained  the  adoption,  the  law,  the  service, 
and  of  whom  Christ  came.  This  was  the  great  honour  of  the 
Jewish  race.  For  this  they  were  separated  as  a  peculiar  peo- 
ple, and  preserved  amidst  all  their  afflictions.  As  it  was  true, 
however,  only  in  one  sense,  that  Christ  was  descended  from  the 
Israelites,  and  as  there  was  another  view  of  his  person,  accord- 
ing to  which  he  was  infinitely  exalted  above  them  and  all  other 
men,  the  apostle  qualifies  his  declaration  by  saying  as  concern- 
ing the  flesh.  The  word^es/i  is  used  so  often  for  human  nature 
in  its  present  state,  or  for  men,  that  the  phrase  as  to  the  flesh, 


472"  ROMANS  IX.  5. 

in  such  connections,  evidently  means  in  as  far  as  he  was  a  man, 
or  as  to  his  human  nature,  chap.  i.  3.  In  like  manner,  when 
it  is  said  Christ  was  manifested  or  came  in  the  flesh,  it  means, 
he  came  in  our  nature,  1  Tim.  iii.  16,  1  John  iv.  2,  &c. 

Who  is  over  all,  Crod  blessed  for  ever.  Amen.  There  is  but 
one  interpretation  of  this  important  passage  which  can,  with 
the  least  regard  to  the  rules  of  construction,  be  maintained. 
The  words  6  wv  are  equivalent  here  to  o'c  iazc,  as  in  John  i.  18, 
xii.  17,  2  Cor.  xi.  31.  Over  all,  i.  e.,  over  all  things,  not  over 
all  persons.  The  ndvrcov  is  neuter,  and  not  masculine ;  see 
Acts  X.  37,  1  Cor.  xv.  28.  It  is  supremacy  over  the  universe 
which  is  here  expressed,  and  therefore  this  language  precludes 
the  possibility  of  0£oc  being  taken  in  any  subordinate  sense. 
In  the  Greek  fathers,  6  enl  Trdvnou  0sd^  is  the  constantly 
recilrring  designation  of  the  supreme  God.  So  exalted  is  its 
import,  that  some  of  them  used  it  only  in  reference  to  the 
Father,  who,  being  the  first  Person  in  the  Trinity,  was,  they 
say,  alone  as  a  person,  God  over  all.  It  is  not  the  relation  of 
the  persons  of  the  Trinity,  however,  which  is  here  brought  into 
view,  but  simply  the  true  and  supreme  divinity  of  our  Lord. 
Paul  evidently  declares  that  Christ,  Avho,  he  had  just  said,  was, 
as  to  his  human  nature,  or  as  a  man,  descended  from  the  Israel- 
ites, is,  in  another  respect,  the  supreme  God,  or  God  over  all, 
and  blessed  for  ever.  /That  this  is  the  meaning  of  the  passage, 
is  evident  from  the  following  arguments:  1.  The  relative  wAo 
must  agree  with  the  nearest  antecedent.  There  is  no  other 
subject  in  the  context  sufficiently  prominent  to  make  a  depar- 
ture from  this  ordinary  rule,  in  this  case,  even  plausible.  "  Of 
whom  Christ  came,  who  is,"  &c.  "Who  is?  Certainly  Christ, 
for  he  alone  is  spoken  of.  2.  The  context  requires  this  inter- 
pretation, because,  as  Paul  wfis  speaking  of  Christ,  it  would  be 
very  unnatural  thus  suddenly  to  change  the  subject,  and  break 
out  into  a  doxology  to  God.  Frequently  as  the  pious  feelings 
of  the  apostle  led  him  to  use  such  exclamations  of  praise,  he 
never  does  it  except  when  God  is  the  immediate  subject  of  dis- 
course. See  chap.  i.  25,  "  Who  worship  and  serve  the  creature 
more  than  the  Creator,  who  is  blessed  for  evermore;"  Gal.  i.  5. 
2.  Cor.  xi.  31.  Besides,  it  was  the  very  object  of  the  apostle 
to  set  forth  the  great  honour  to  the  Jews  of  having  Christ  born 


ROMANS  IX.  5.  -473 

among  them,  and  this,  of  course,  woidd  lead  to  his  presenting 
the  dignity  of  the  Redeemer  in  the  strongest  light.  For  the 
greater  he  was,  the  greater  the  honour  to  those  of  whose  race 
he  came.  3.  The  antithesis,  which  is  evidently  implied  be- 
tween the  two  clauses  of  the  verse,  is  in  favour  of  this  interpre- 
tation. Christ,  according  to  the  flesh,  was  an  Israelite,  but, 
according  to  his  higher  nature,  the  supreme  God.  On  any 
other  interpretation  there  is  nothing  to  answer  to  the  to  xata 
adpxa.  These  words  are  used  in  distinct  reference,  and  for  the 
sake  of  the  clause  who  is  over  all.  Why  not  simply  say,  "  of 
whom  Christ  came"  ?  This  would  have  expressed  every  thing, 
had  not  the  apostle  designed  to  bring  into  view  the  divine 
nature.  Having,  however,  the  purpose  to  exalt  Christ,  in 
order  to  present  in  the  highest  form  the  honour  conferred  on 
the  Jewish  race  in  giving  the  Messiah  to  the  world,  he  limits 
the  first  clause.  It  was  only  as  to  the  flesh  that  Christ  was 
descended  from  the  patriarchs ;  as  to  his  higher  nature,  he  was 
the  supreme  God.  See  the  strikingly  analogous  passage  in 
chap.  i.  3,  4,  where  Christ  is  said,  according  to  one  nature,  to 
be  the  Son  of  David,  according  to  the  other,  the  Son  of  God. 
4.  No  other  interpretation  is  at  all  consistent  with  the  gram- 
matical construction,  or  the  relative  position  of  the  words. 
One  proposed  by  Erasmus  is  to  place  a  full  stop  after  the 
words  Christ  came,  and  make  all  the  rest  of  the  verse  refer  to 
God.  The  passage  would  then  read  thus :  "  Of  whom,  as  con- 
cerning the  flesh,  Christ  came.  God  blessed  for  ever.  Amen." 
But  this  is  not  only  opposed  by  the  reasons  already  urged,  that 
such  doxologies  suppose  God  to  be  the  immediate  subject  of 
discourse,  or  are  preceded  by  some  particle  which  breaks  the 
connection,  and  shows  plainly  what  the  reference  is,  &c. ;  but, 
apart  from  these  objections,  no  such  doxology  occurs  in  all  the 
Bible.  That  is,  the  uniform  expression  is,  "blessed  be  God," 
and  never  "God  be  blessed."*  The  word  blessed  always 
stands  first,  and  the  word  Crod  after  it  with  the  article.  Often 
as  such  cases  occur  in  the  Greek  and  Hebrew  Scriptures,  there 

*  In  the  Greek  version  of  the  Old  Testament,  the  constant  form  of  the 
doxology  is  vjK^ynTo;  o  Qik,  or  ilixoynroi;  Ki/g/sc  o  ©esf,  never  the  reverse.  And  so 
in  Hebrew,  always  pjiiTi  "Ij^ia 


474  ROMANS  IX.  5. 

ia,  it  is  believed,  no  case  of  the  contrary  arrangement.  In 
Psalm  Ixviii.  20  (Septuagint  Ixvii.  19),  the  only  apparent 
exception,  the  first  clause  is  probably  not  a  doxology,  but  a 
simple  affirmation,  as  in  the  old  Latin  version,  Dominus  Deus 
benedictus  est.  In  the  Hebrew  it  is,  as  in  all  other  cases, 
Blessed  be  the  Lord,  and  so  in  our  version  of  that  Psalm.  See 
also  Ps.  xxxi.  21,  Ixxii.  18,  19,  xli.  13,  Ixviii.  35,  Ixxxix. 
62,  Gen.  ix.  26,  Exod.  xviii.  10,  and  a  multitude  of  other  ex- 
amples. In  all  these  and  similar  passages,  the  expression  is 
blessed  be  Crod,  or  blessed  be  the  Lord,  and  never  God  blessed, 
or  Lord  blessed.  This  being  the  case,  it  is  altogether  incredi- 
ble that  Paul,  whose  ear  must  have  been  perfectly  familiar 
with  this  constantly  recurring  formula  of  praise,  should,  in 
this  solitary  instance,  have  departed  from  the  established 
usage.  This  passage,  therefore,  cannot  be  considered  as  a 
doxology,  or  an  ascription  of  praise  to  God,  and  rendered 
Crod  be  blessed,  but  must  be  taken  as  a  declaration,  who  is 
blessed;  see  chap.  i.  25,  "The  Creator,  who  is  blessed  for 
ever."  2  Cor.  xi.  31,  "The  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  who  is  blessed  for  evermore."  See  Matt.  xxi.  9, 
Luke  i.  68,  2  Cor.  i.  3,  Eph.  i.  3,  1  Pet.  i.  3 ;  in  these  and 
all  other  cases,  where,  as  here,  the  copula  is  omitted,  it  is 
eu^o^oroc  6  deot;.  Where  the  relative  and  verb  are  used,  then 
it  is  not  an  exclamation  but  an  affirmation,  as  Rom.  i.  25 :  rbv 
XTcaavza,  oc  ianu  ebXoYTjZoz  £^c  ^obc  auoua<;.  'Ajirjv.  2  Cor. 
xi.  31 :  6  debz  xal  Ttarrjp — 6  wv  eu^oyy^zb^  ei<;  zob<;  auova^ ;  and 
Here,  XptazoQ,  b  wv  em  Tidvzcou  debc;,  tuXoyr^zbi;  £fc  touc  al(s)va(^. 
^Ajiiijv.  To  separate  this  passage  from  the  class  to  which  it 
obviously  belongs,  and  to  make  it  a  solitary  exception,  is  to  do 
violence  to  the  text.  A  second  method  of  pointing  the  verse, 
also,  proposed  by  Erasmus,  and  followed  by  many  others,  is  to 
place  the  pause  after  the  word  all.  The  verse  would  then  read, 
"  Of  whom,  as  concerning  the  flesh,  Christ  came,  who  is  over 
all.  God  be  blessed  for  ever."  This  avoids  some  of  the  diffi- 
culties specified  above,  but  it  is  subject  to  all  the  others.  It 
breaks  unnaturally  the  connection,  and  makes  a  doxology  out 
of  a  form  of  expression  which,  in  the  Scriptures,  as  just  stated, 
is  never  so  used.  5.  There  is  no  reason  for  thus  torturing  the 
text  to  make  it  speak  a  different  language  from  that  commonly 


ROMANS  IX.  5.  475 

ascribed  to  it;  because  the  sense  afforded,  according  to  the 
common  interpretation,  is  scriptural,  and  in  perfect  accordance 
with  other  declarations  of  this  apostle.  Titus  i.  3,  "According 
to  the  commandment  of  God  our  Saviour."  "Looking  for  that 
blessed  hope,  and  the  glorious  appearing  of  the  great  God  and 
(even)  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,"  Titus  ii.  13 ;  see  Phil.  ii.  6, 
Col.  ii.  9,  &c.,  &c. 

Over  all  is  equivalent  to  most  high,  supreme.  The  same 
■words  occur  in  Eph.  iv.  6,  "One  God,  who  is  above  all."  This 
passage,  therefore,  shows  that  Christ  is  God  in  the  highest 
sense  of  the  word.  Amen  is  a  Hebrew  word  signifying  true. 
It  is  used  as  in  the  New  Testament  often  adverbially,  and  is  ren- 
dered verily;  or,  at  the  close  of  a  sentence,  as  expressing  desire, 
let  it  he,  or  merely  approbation.  It  does  not,  therefore,  neces- 
sarily imply  that  the  clause  to  which  it  is  attached  contains  a 
"wish.  It  is  used  here,  as  in  Hom.  i.  25,  for  giving  a  solemn 
assent  to  what  has  been  said.  "  God  who  is  blessed  for  ever. 
Amen."     'To  this  declaration  we  say.  Amen.     It  is  true.' 

DOCTRINE. 

1.  The  Holy  Ghost  is  ever  present  with  the  souls  of  the 
people  of  God.  He  enlightens  the  judgment  and  guides  the 
conscience,  so  that  the  true  and  humble  Christian  often  has  an 
assurance  of  his  sincerity,  and  of  the  correctness  of  what  he 
says  or  does,  above  what  the  powers  of  nature  can  bestow, 
ver.  1. 

2.  There  is  no  limit  to  the  sacrifice  which  one  man  may  make 
for  the  benefit  of  others,  except  that  which  his  duty  to  God 
imposes,  ver.  3. 

8.  Paul  does  not  teach  that  we  should  be  willing  to  be 
damned  for  the  glory  of  God.  1.  His  very  language  implies 
that  such  a  wish  would  be  improper.  For  in  the  ardour  of  his 
disinterested  affection,  he  does  not  himself  entertain  or  express 
the  wish,  but  merely  says,  in  effect,  that  were  it  proper  or  pos- 
sible, he  would  be  willing  to  perish  for  the  sake  of  his  brethren. 
2.  If  it  is  wrong  to  do  evil  that  good  may  come,  how  can  it  be 
right  to  wish  to  he  evil  that  good  may  come  ?  3.  There  seems 
to  be  a  contradiction  involved  in  the  very  terms  of  the  wish. 
Can  one  love  God  so  much  as  to  wish  to  hate  him  ?     Can  he  be 


476  ROMANS  IX.  1—5. 

so  good  as  to  desire  to  be  bad  ?  We  must  be  willing  to  give  up 
houses  and  lands,  parents  and  brethren,  and  our  life  also,  for 
Christ  and  his  kingdom,  but  we  are  never  required  to  give  up 
holiness  for  his  sake,  for  this  would  be  a  contradiction. 

4.  It  is,  in  itself,  a  great  blessing  to  belong  to  the  external 
people  of  God,  and  to  enjoy  all  the  privileges  consequent  on 
this  relation,  ver.  4. 

5.  Jesus  Christ  is  at  once  man  and  God  over  all,  blessed  for 
ever.  Paul  asserts  this  doctrine  in  language  too  plain  to  be 
misunderstood,  ver.  5. 

REMARKS. 

1.  Whatever  we  say  or  do,  should  be  said  or  done  as  in 
Christ,  i.  e.,  in  a  Christian  manner,  ver.  1. 

2.  If  we  can  view,  unmoved,  the  perishing  condition  of  our 
fellow-men,  or  are  unwilling  to  make  sacrifices  for  their  benefit, 
we  are  very  difi'erent  from  Paul,  and  from  Him  Avho  wept 
over  Jerusalem,  and  died  for  our  good  upon  Mount  Calvary, 
vs.  2,  3. 

3.  Though  we  may  belong  to  the  true  Church,  and  enjoy  all 
its  privileges,  we  may  still  be  cast  away.  Our  external  relation 
to  the  people  of  God  cannot  secure  our  salvation,  ver.  4. 

4.  A  pious  parentage  is  a  great  distinction  and  blessing,  and 
should  be  felt  and  acknowledged  as  such,  ver.  5. 

5.  If  Jesus  Christ  has  come  in  the  flesh,  if  he  has  a  nature 
like  our  own,  how  intimate  the  union  between  him  and  his 
people ;  how  tender  the  relation ;  how  unspeakable  the  honour 
done  to  human  nature  in  having  it  thus  exalted !  If  Jesus 
Christ  is  God  over  all,  and  blessed  for  ever,  how  profound 
should  be  our  reverence,  how  unreserved  our  obedience,  and 
how  entire  and  joyful  our  confidence !  ver.  5. 

6.  These  five  verses,  the  introduction  to  the  three  following 
chapters,  teach  us  a  lesson  which  we  have  before  had  occasion 
to  notice.  Fidelity  does  not  require  that  we  should  make  the 
truth  as  ofi"ensive  as  possible.  On  the  contrary,  we  are  bound 
to  endeavour,  as  Paul  did,  to  allay  all  opposing  or  inimical 
feelings  in  the  minds  of  those  whom  we  address,  and  to  allow 
the  truth,  unimpeded  by  the  exhibition  of  any  thing  oifensive 
on  our  part,  to  do  its  work  upon  the  heart  and  conscience. 


ROMANS  IX.  6—24.  477 


ROMANS   IX.  6—24. 

ANALYSIS. 

The  apostle  now  approaches  the  subject  which  he  had  in 
view,  the  rejection  of  the  Jews  and  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles. 
That  God  had  determined  to  cast  off  his  ancient  covenant 
people,  as  such,  and  to  extend  the  call  of  the  gospel  indis- 
criminately to  all  men,  is  the  point  which  the  apostle  is  about 
to  establish.  He  does  this  by  showing,  in  the  first  place,  that 
God  is  perfectly  free  thus  to  act,  vs.  6 — 24,  and  in  the  second, 
that  he  had  declared  in  the  prophets  that  such  was  his  inten- 
tion, vs.  25—33. 

That  God  was  at  liberty  to  reject  the  Jews  and  to  call  the 
Gentiles,  Paul  argues,  1.  By  showing  that  the  promises  which 
he  had  made,  and  by  which  he  had  graciously  bound  himself, 
were  not  made  to  the  natural  descendants  of  Abraham  as  such, 
but  to  his  spiritual  seed.  This  is  plain  from  the  case  of  Ishmael 
and  Isaac ;  both  were  the  children  of  Abraham,  yet  one  was 
taken  and  the  other  left.  And  also  from  the  case  of  Esau  and 
Jacob.  Though  children  of  the  same  parents,  and  born  at  one 
birth,  yet  "Jacob  have  I  loved  and  Esau  have  I  hated,"  is  the 
language  of  God  respecting  them,  vs.  6 — 13.  2.  By  showing 
that  God  is  perfectly  sovereign  in  the  distribution  of  his 
favours ;  that  he  is  determined  neither  by  the  external  rela- 
tions, nor  by  the  personal  character  of  men,  in  the  selection  of 
the  objects  of  his  mercy.  This  is  proved  by  the  examples  just 
referred  to;  by  the  choice  of  Isaac  instead  of  Ishmael,  and 
especially  by  that  of  Jacob  instead  of  Esau.  In  this  case  the 
choice  was  made  and  announced  before  the  birth  of  the  children, 
that  it  might  be  seen  that  it  was  not  according  to  works,  but 
according  to  the  sovereign  purpose  of  God,  vs.  6 — 13, 

Against  this  doctrine  of  the  divine  sovereignty,  there  are  two 
obvious  objections,  which  have  been  urged  in  every  age  of  the 
world,  and  which  the  apostle  here  explicitly  states  and  answers. 
The  first  IS,  that  it  is  unjust  in  God  thus  to  choose  one,  and 
reject  another,  at  his  mere  good  pleasure,  ver.  14.  To  this 
Paul  gives  two  answers:    1.    God  claims  the  prerogative  of 


478  ROMANS  IX.  6. 

sovereign  mercy ;  saying,  "  I  will  have  mercy  on  whom  I  will 
have  mercy,"  vs.  15,  16.  2.  He  exercises  this  right,  as  is 
evident  from  the  case  of  Pharaoh,  with  regard  to  whom  he  says, 
"For  this  same  purpose  have  I  raised  thee  up,"  vs.  17,  18. 
The  second  objection  is,  that  if  this  doctrine  be  true,  it  destroys 
the  responsibility  of  men,  ver.  19.  To  this  also  Paul  gives  a 
twofold  answer :  1.  The  very  urging  of  an  objection  against  a 
prerogative  which  God  claims  in  his  word,  and  exercises  in  his 
providence,  is  an  irreverent  contending  with  our  Maker,  espe- 
cially as  the  right  in  question  necessarily  arises  out  of  the  rela- 
tion between  men  and  God  as  creatures  and  Creator,  vs.  20,  21. 
2.  There  is  nothing  in  the  exercise  of  this  sovereignty  incon- 
sistent with  either  justice  or  mercy.  God  only  punishes  the 
wicked  for  their  sins,  while  he  extends  undeserved  mercy  to  the 
objects  of  his  grace.  There  is  no  injustice  done  to  one  wicked 
man  in  the  pardon  of  another,  especially  as  there  are  the 
highest  objects  to  be  accomplished  both  in  the  punishment  of 
the  vessels  of  wrath,  and  the  pardon  of  the  vessels  of  mercy. 
God  does  nothing  more  than  exercise  a  right  inherent  in 
sovereignty,  viz.,  that  of  dispensing  pardon  at  his  pleasure, 
vs.  22—24. 

COMMENTARY. 

Verse  6.  It  has  already  been  remarked,  (chap.  iii.  3,)  that 
it  was  a  common  opinion  among  the  Jews,  that  the  promises 
of  God  being  made  to  Abraham  and  to  his  seed,  all  his  natural 
descendants,  sealed,  as  such,  by  the  rite  of  circumcision,  would 
certainly  inherit  the  blessings  of  the  Messiah's  reign.  It  was 
enough  for  them,  therefore,  to  be  able  to  say,  "  We  have  Abra- 
ham to  our  father."  This  being  the  case,  it  was  obvious  that  it 
would  at  once  be  presented  as  a  fatal  objection  to  the  apostle's 
doctrine  of  the  rejection  of  the  Jews,  that  it  was  inconsistent 
with  the  promises  of  God.  Paul,  therefore,  without  even  dis- 
tinctly announcing  the  position  which  he  intended  to  maintain, 
removes  this  preliminary  objection.  It  is  indeed  peculiarly 
worthy  of  remark,  as  characteristic  of  the  apostle's  tenderness 
and  caution,  that  he  does  not  at  all  formally  declare  the  truth 
which  he  labours  in  this  chapter  to  establish.  He  does  not  tell 
the  Jews  at  once  they  were  to  be  cast  ojffj  but  begins  by  pro- 


ROMANS  IX.  6.  479 

fessing  his  affection  for  them,  and  his  sorrow  for  their  destiny ; 
thus  simply,  by  implication,  informing  them  that  they  were  not 
to  be  admitted  to  the  Messiah's  kingdom.  When  he  has  shown 
that  this  rejection  involved  no  failure  on  the  part  of  God  in 
keeping  his  promises,  and  was  consistent  with  his  justice  and 
mercy,  he  more  distinctly  announces  that,  agreeably  to  the  pre- 
dictions of  their  own  prophets,  they  were  no  longer  the  peculiar 
people  of  God.  The  remark,  therefore,  which  Calvin  makes  on 
ver.  2,  is  applicable  to  the  whole  introductory  part  of  the 
chapter.  Non  caret  artificio,  quod  orationem  ita  abscidit, 
nondum  exprimens  qua  de  re  loquatur;  nondum  enim  oppor- 
tunum  crat,  interitum  gentis  Judaicae  aperte  exprimere.  In 
vs.  2,  3,  in  which  he  professed  his  sorrow  for  his  brethren  and  his 
readiness  to  suffer  for  them,  it  was,  of  course,  implied  that  they 
were  no  longer  to  be  the  peculiar  people  of  God,  heirs  of  the 
promises,  &c.,  &c.  This,  Paul  shows,  involves  no  failure  on 
the  part  of  the  divine  promises.  Not  as  though  the  word  of 
God  hath  taken  none  effect,  kc.  That  is,  '  I  say  nothing  which 
implies  that  the  word  of  God  has  failed.'  The  simplest  expla- 
nation of  the  words  ou'^  oluu  dk  ore,  is,  not  as  that,  i.  e.,  I  say  no 
such  thing  as  that.  It  is  thus  an  elliptical  phrase  for  ou  rdlov 
ok  Xeyw,  dlov  ore,  non  tale,  {dico,)  quale  {Jioe  est)  excidisse  cet. 
Winer,  §  QQ.  5.  Others  give  ob'j(^  oJou  8k  followed  by  ou,  the 
force  of  ou^  olov  rs  followed  by  an  infinitive,  viz.,  it  is  not 
possible.  This,  however,  is  not  only  contrary  to  usage,  but  to 
the  context.  Paul  does  not  intend  to  say  that  it  is  impossible 
the  promise  should  fail,  but  simply  that  his  doctrine  did  not 
conflict  with  the  promise.  God  had  not  bound  himself  never 
to  cast  off  the  Jews ;  and  therefore  what  the  apostle  taught 
concerning  their  rejection  did  not  involve  the  failure  of  the 
word  of  God.  Meyer,  who  generally  defends  the  apostle  from 
the  charge  of  violating  Greek  usage,  assumes  that  he  here  con- 
founds two  forms  of  expression,  ou")^  olou  kxTtenvcoxeu  and  ou^  ore 
ixTvinvioxsu.  He  agrees,  however,  with  the  explanation  quoted 
above  from  Winer.  The  word  of  Cfod  means  any  thing  which 
God  has  spoken,  and  here,  from  the  connection,  the  promise 
made  to  Abraham,  including  the  promise  of  salvation  through 
Jesus  Christ.  Hath  taken  none  effect,  literally,  hath  fallen, 
i.  e.,  failed.     "  It  is  easier  for  heaven  and  earth  to  pass,  than 


480  ROMANS  IX.  7. 

one  tittle  of  the  law  to  fail,"  literally,  to  fall,  Luke,  xvi.  17. 
So  this  word  is  used  frequently.  The  reason  why  the  rejection 
of  the  Jews  involved  no  failure  on  the  part  of  the  divine  pro- 
mise, is,  that  the  promise  was  not  addressed  to  the  mere  natural 
descendants  of  Abraham.  For  they  are  not  all  Israel  which  are 
of  Israel,  i.  e.,  all  the  natural  descendants  of  the  patriarch  are 
not  the  true  people  of  God,  to  whom  alone  the  promises 
properly  belong.  The  word  Israel  may  refer  either  to  Jacob  or 
to  the  people.  'All  descended  from  the  patriarch  Jacob 
called  Israel,  are  not  the  true  people  of  God;'  or,  'all  belong- 
ing to  the  external  Israel  are  not  the  true  Israel;'  i.  e.,  all  who 
are  in  the  (visible)  Church  do  not  belong  to  the  true  Church. 
The  sense  is  the  same,  but  the  former  explanation  is  the 
more  natural.  In  the  following  verse  the  apostle  distinguishes 
between  the  natural  and  spiritual  seed  of  Abraham,  as  here  he 
distinguishes  between  the  two  classes  of  the  descendants  of 
Israel. 

Verse  7.  Neither  because  they  are  the  seed  of  Abraham  are 
they  all  children.  In  this  and  the  following  verses  the  senti- 
ment is  confirmed,  that  natural  descent  from  Abraham  does  not 
secure  a  portion  in  the  promised  inheritance.  The  language  of 
this  verse  is,  from  the  context,  perfectly  intelligible.  The  seed, 
or  natural  descendants  of  Abraham,  are  not  all  his  children  in 
the  true  sense  of  the  term ;  i.  e.,  like  him  in  faith,  and  heirs  of 
his  promise.  So  in  Gal.  iii.  7,  Paul  says,  "They  which  are  of 
faith,  the  same  are  the  children  of  Abraham."  This  verse  is 
part  of  the  sentence  begun  in  the  preceding  verse.  It  pre- 
sents the  same  idea  in  a  different  form.  'All  the  descend- 
ants of  Israel  are  not  the  true  Israel,  neither  are  all  the 
seed  of  Abraham  his  (true,  or  spiritual)  children.'  Children, 
viz.,  of  Abraham.  Others  supply  ro5  deoo,  "the  seed  of  Abra- 
ham are  not  all  children  of  God."  This  is  true,  but  it  is  not 
what  the  apostle  here  says.  His  object  is  to  show  that  the 
promises  made  to  the  children  of  Abraham  were  not  made  to 
his  natural  descendants  as  such. 

But  in  Isaac  shall  thy  seed  be  called.  As  the  word  rendered 
called  sometimes  means  to  choose,  Isa.  xlviii.  12,  xlix.  1,  the 
meaning  of  the  phrase  may  be  'In  Isaac  shall  thy  seed  be 
chosen.'     'I  will  select  him  as  the  recipient  of  the  blessings 


ROMANS  IX.  8.  481 

promised  to  you.'  2.  To  he  called  is  often  equivalent  to  to  5e, 
to  he  regarded,  as  Isa.  Ixii.  4,  "  Thou  shalt  not  be  called  deso- 
late," i.  e.,  thou  shalt  not  be  desolate.  Hence,  in  this  case,  the 
text  may  mean,  '  In  Isaac  shall  thy  seed  be,'  i.  e.,  he  shall  be 
thy  seed.  Or,  3.  ''After  Isaac  shall  thy  seed  be  called,'  they 
shall  derive  their  name  from  him.  Shall  he  named,  i.  e.,  shall  be 
so  regarded  and  recognised.  '  Not  all  the  children  of  Abraham 
■were  made  the  heirs  of  his  blessings,  but  Isaac  was  selected  by 
the  sovereign  will  of  God  to  be  the  recipient  of  the  promise.' 
This  is  the  general  meaning  of  the  passage  ;  but  here,  as  before, 
it  may  be  understood  either  of  the  individual  Isaac,  or  of  his 
descendants.  'Isaac  shall  be  to  thee  for  a  seed;'  or,  'Through 
Isaac  shall  a  seed  be  to  thee.'  The  former  is  the  more  con- 
sistent with  the  context,  because  Paul's  immediate  object  is  to 
show  that  natural  descent  from  Abraham  did  not  make  a  man 
one  of  his  true  seed.  Ishmael  was  a  son  of  Abraham  as  well  as 
Isaac,  but  the  latter  only  was,  in  the  spiritual  sense  of  the 
tei'm,  his  seed.  The  Greek  here  answers  exactly  to  the 
original  Hebrew,  '  In  Isaac  a  seed  shall  be  called  to  thee,  or  for 
thee.'  That  is,  'Isaac  (not  Ishmael)  shall  be  to  thee  a  son  and 
heir.'  God  therefore  is  sovereign  in  the  distribution  of  his 
favours.  As  he  rejected  Ishmael  notwithstanding  his  natural 
descent  from  Abraham,  so  he  may  reject  the  Jews,  although 
they  also  had  Abraham  as  a  father. 

Verse  8.  That  is,  they  ivhich  are  the  children  of  the  flesh, 
these  are  not  the  children  of  Grod.  The  simplest  view  of  this 
verse  would  seem  to  be,  to  regard  it  as  an  explanation  of  the 
historical  argument  contained  in  the  preceding  verse.  'The 
Scriptures  declare  that  Isaac,  in  preference  to  Ishmael,  was 
selected  to  be  the  true  seed  and  heir  of  Abraham,  that  is,  or 
this  proves,  that  it  is  not  the  children  of  the  flesh  that  are 
regarded  as  the  children  of  God,  &c.'  This  suits  the  immedi- 
ate object  of  the  apostle,  which  is  to  show  that  God,  according 
to  his  good  pleasure,  chooses  one  and  rejects  another,  and  that 
he  is  not  bound  to  make  the  children  of  Abraham,  as  such,  the 
heirs  of  his  promise.  It  is  very  common,  however,  to  consider 
this  passage  as  analogous  to  that  in  Gal.  iv.  22 — 31;  and  to 
regard  the  apostle  as  unfolding  the  analogy  between  the  history 
of  Isaac  and  Ishmael,  and  that  of  the  spiritual  and  natural 
31 


482  ROMANS  IX.  8. 

cliildren  of  Abraham;  Isaac  being  the  symbol  of  the  former, 
and  Ishmael  of  the  latter.  As  Ishmael,  "who  was  born  after 
the  flesh,  (Gal.  iv.  23,)  i.  e.,  according  to  the  ordinary  course 
of  nature,  was  rejected,  so  also  are  the  cliildren  of  the  flesh; 
and  as  Isaac,  who  was  born  "by  promise,"  i.  e.,  in  virtue  of 
the  promised  interference  of  God,  was  made  the  heir,  so  also 
are  they  heirs,  who  in  like  manner  are  the  children  of  the 
promise,  that  is,  who  are  the  children  of  God,  not  by  their 
natural  birth,  but  by  his  special  and  efiectual  grace.  The 
point  of  comparison,  then,  between  Isaac  and  believers  is,  that 
both  are  born,  or  become  the  children  of  God,  not  in  virtue  of 
ordinary  birth,  but  in  virtue  of  the  special  interposition  of  God. 
In  favour  of  this  view  is  certainly  the  strikingly  analogous 
passage  referred  to  in  Galatians,  and  also  the  purport  of  the 
next  verse.  Besides  this,  if  Paul  meant  to  say  nothing  more 
in  this  and  the  following  verse,  than  that  it  appears  from  the 
choice  of  Isaac  that  God  is  free  to  select  one  from  among  the 
descendants  of  Abraham  and  to  reject  another,  these  verses 
would  difiier  too  little  from  what  he  had  already  said  in  vs.  6,  7. 
It  is  best,  therefore,  to  consider  this  passage  as  designed  to 
point  out  an  instructive  analogy  between  the  case  of  Isaac  and 
the  true  children  of  God;  he  was  born  in  virtue  of  a  special 
divine  interposition,  so  now,  those  who  are  the  real  children  of 
God,  are  born  not  after  the  flesh,  but  by  his  special  grace. 

The  children  of  the  promise.  This  expression  admits  of 
various  explanations.  1.  Many  take  it  as  meaning  merely 
the  promised  children,  as  child  of  promise  is  equivalent  to 
child  which  is  promised.  But  this  evidently  does  not  suit  the 
application  of  the  phrase  to  believers  as  made  here,  and  in  Gal. 
iv.  28.  2.  It  may  mean,  according  to  a  common  force  of  the 
genitive,  children  in  virtue  of  a  promise.  This  suits  the  con- 
text exactly.  It  assigns  to  the  genitive  i7:ayjs?,ea<;  in  this 
clause  the  same  force  that  aapxoz  has  in  the  preceding.  Isaac 
was  born  not  after  the  ordinary  course  of  nature,  but  in  virtue 
of  a  divine  promise.  See  Gal.  iv.  23,  where  the  expressions  horn 
after  the  fiesh,  and  born  by  promise,  are  opposed  to  each  other. 
It  is,  of  course,  implied  in  the  phrase  children  in  virtue  of  a 
promise,  that  it  is  by  a  special  interposition  that  they  become 
children,  and  this  is  the  sense  in  which  Paul  applies  the  expres- 


ROMANS  IX.  9.  483 

sion  to  believers  generally.  In  Gal.  iv.  28,  he  says,  "We,  as 
Isaac  was,  are  the  children  of  promise."  Believers,  therefore, 
are  children  of  the  promise  in  the  same  sense  as  Isaac.  The 
birth  of  Isaac  was  xara  Tivzufia,  supernatural ;  believers  also 
are  the  children  of  God  in  virtue  of  a  spiritual  or  supernatural 
birth.  This  is  the  main  idea,  although  not  the  full  meaning. 
The  children  of  promise  are  those  to  whom  the  promise  belongs. 
This  is  what  the  apostle  has  specially  in  view  in  the  passage  in 
Galatians.  He  there  desires  to  show  that  believers  are  the 
true  children  of  Abraham,  and  heirs  of  the  promise  made  to 
the  father  of  the  faithful.  This  idea,  therefore,  is  not  to  be 
excluded  even  here.  Isaac  was  not  only  born  in  virtue  of  a 
promise,  but  was,  on  that  account,  heir  of  the  promised  bless- 
ing. The  former,  however,  as  just  stated,  is  the  prominent 
idea,  as  appears  from  the  following  verse.  Comp.  John  i.  13. 
"  Who  are  born  not  of  blood,  nor  of  the  will  of  the  flesh,  nor  of 
the  will  of  man,  but  of  God."  This  idea  seems  to  be  included 
in  the  apostle's  use  of  the  expression.  Gal.  iv.  28,  "Now  we, 
brethren,  as  Isaac  was,  are  the  children  of  promise,"  and  iii. 
29,  "  Ye  are  Abraham's  seed,  and  heirs  according  to  the  pro- 
mise;" see,  too.  Gal.  iii.  18,  22,  Rom.  iv.  16,  "To  the  end  the 
promise  might  be  sure  to  all  the  seed."  Though  this  idea 
seems  to  have  been  in  the  apostle's  mind,  the  second  expla- 
nation is  most  in  accordance  with  the  context.  Are  counted 
for  the  seed,  i.  e.,  are  regarded  and  treated  as  such.  "Not  the 
natural  descendants  of  Abraham  are  the  children  of  God,  but 
those  who  are  born  again  by  his  special  interposition,  are  re- 
garded and  treated  as  his  true  children."  See  the  same  form 
of  expression  in  Gen.  xxxi.  15. 

Verse  9.  For  this  is  the  word  of  promise,  at  this  time  will 
I  come,  and  Sarah  shall  have  a  son.  Literally,  (the  word  of) 
the  promise  is  this  word.  This  verse  is  evidently  designed  to 
show  the  propriety,  and  to  explain  the  force  of  the  phrase 
children  of  the  promise.  I  aac  was  so  called  because  God  said 
at  this  time  I  will  come,  &c.  This  is  not  only  a  prediction  and 
promise  that  Isaac  should  be  born,  but  also  a  declaration  that 
it  should  be  in  consequence  of  God's  coming,  i.  e.,  of  the  spe- 
cial manifestation  of  his  power ;  as,  in  scriptural  language,  God 
is  said  to  come,  wherever  he  specially  manifests  his  presence 


484  ROMANS  IX.  10. 

or  power,  John  xiv.  23,  Luke  i.  68,  &c.  The  apostle  does 
not  follow  exactly  the  Hebrew  or  the  Septuagint.  He  gives 
the  substance  of  Gen.  xviii.  10,  and  xviii.  14.  The  words 
n';in  nw  at  the  living  time,  either  tempore  vivente,  i.  e.,  rede- 
unte,  or,  the  time  being,  i.  e.,  the  current  time,  are  rendered  by 
the  LXX.  and  the  apostle,  xara  rbv  xacpbv  zoovov,  at  this  season. 
That  is,  when  this  season  of  the  year  returns  again. 

Verse  10.  And  not  only  (this);  hut  when  Rebecca  had  con- 
ceived by  one,  (even)  by  our  father  Isaac.  Not  only  does  the 
case  of  Isaac  and  Ishmael  prove  that  the  choice  of  God  does 
not  depend  on  natural  descent,  but  on  the  sovereign  will  of 
God,  but  that  of  Rebecca  evinces  the  same  truth  still  more 
clearly.  In  the  former  case,  it  might  be  supposed  that  Isaac 
was  chosen  because  he  was  the  son  of  Sarah,  a  free  woman,  and 
the  legitimate  wife  of  Abraham,  whereas  Ishmael  was  the  son 
of  a  maid-servant.  In  the  choice  between  Jacob  and  Esau, 
there  is  no  room  for  any  such  supposition.  They  had  the  same 
father,  the  same  mother,  and  were  born  at  one  birth.  Here, 
assuredly,  the  choice  was  sovereign.  The  original  is  here  ellip- 
tical, something  must  be  supplied  to  complete  the  sense.  On 
the  principle  that  an  ellipsis  should,  if  possible,  be  supplied 
from  the  immediate  context,  Winer,  Meyer,  and  others,  supply 
the  ellipsis  thus :  '  Not  only  did  Sarah  receive  a  promise  of  a 
son,  but  Rebecca  also.'  In  this  view  the  construction  of  the 
passage  is  regular;  otherwise,  an  irregularity,  or  change  of 
grammatical  construction,  must  be  assumed  in  ver.  12.  'Not 
only  Rebecca — it  was  said  to  her.'  To  this  however,  it  is 
objected,  first,  that  the  promise  was  not  made  to  Sarah,  but  to 
Abraham ;  and  secondly,  that  no  promise  was  made  to  Rebecca. 
Others,  therefore,  prefer  supplying  simply,  did  this  happen. 
That  is,  not  only  was  Isaac  chosen  instead  of  Ishmael,  although 
both  were  the  sons  of  Abraham,  but  also  Rebecca.  Then  we 
must  either  assume  a  grg^mmatical  irregularity,  or  the  nomina- 
tive (Rebecca)  must  be  taken  absolutely;  or  we  can  supply 
some  such  phrase  as,  Rebecca  also  proves  this,  i.  e.,  the  sove- 
reignty of  God  in  election.  These  questions  do  not  affect  the 
sense  of  the  passage.  The  apostle  proceeds  with  his  historical 
proof  that  God,  according  to  his  own  good  pleasure,  does  choose 


ROMANS  IX.  11.  485 

one  and  reject  another.  He  has  therefore  the  right  to  cast  off 
the  Jews. 

Verse  11.  For  the  children  being  not  yet  born,  neither 
having  done  any  good  or  evil,  &c.  The  force  oi  for  is  clear  by 
a  reference  to  the  preceding  verse,  and  the  object  of  the 
apostle.  'Not  only  does  the  case  of  Isaac  and  Ishmael  evince 
the  sovereignty  of  God,  but  that  of  Rebecca  and  her  children 
does  the  same,  in  a  still  more  striking  manner,  for  the  decision 
between  her  children  was  made  previously  to  their  birth,  for  the 
very  purpose  of  showing  that  it  was  not  made  on  the  ground 
of  works,  but  of  the  sovereign  pleasure  of  God.'  This  is  an 
example  which  cannot  be  evaded.  With  regard  to  Ishmael,  it 
might  be  supposed  that  either  the  circumstances  of  his  birth,  or 
his  personal  character,  was  the  ground  of  his  rejection ;  but 
with  regard  to  Esau  neither  of  these  suppositions  can  be  made. 
The  circumstances  of  his  birth  were  identical  with  those  of  his 
favoured  brother,  and  the  choice  was  made  before  either  had 
done  any  thing  good  or  evil.  The  case  of  Ishmael  was,  indeed, 
sufficient  to  prove  that  having  Abraham  for  a  father  was  not 
enough  to  secure  the  inheritance  of  the  promise,  but  it  could 
not  prove  the  entire  sovereignty  of  the  act  of  election  on  the 
part  of  God,  as  is  so  fully  done  by  that  of  Jacob  and  Esau. 
This  passage  shows  clearly  that  the  design  of  the  apostle  is  not 
simply  to  show  that  natural  descent  from  Abraham  was  a  title 
to  Messianic  blessings,  but  that  works  also  were  excluded ;  that 
the  choice  of  God  was  sovereign. 

Neither  having  done  good  or  evil.  The  design  of  the  intro- 
duction of  these  words  is  expressly  stated  in  the  next  clause. 
It  was  to  show  that  the  ground  of  choice  was  not  in  them,  but 
in  God ;  and  this  is  the  main  point  in  regard  to  the  doctrine 
of  election,  whether  the  choice  be  to  the  privileges  of  the 
external  theocracy,  or  to  the  spiritual  and  eternal  blessings  of 
the  kingdom  of  Christ. 

That  the  purpose  of  G-od,  according  to  election,  might  stand. 
This  is  the  reason  why  the  choice  was  made  prior  to  birth. 
The  original  here  admits  of  various  interpretations,  which,  how- 
ever, do  not  materially  alter  the  sense.  The  word  rendered 
purpose,  is  that  which  was  used  in  the  previous  chapter,  ver.  28, 
and  means  here,  as  there,  a  determination  of  the  will,  and  of 


486  ROMANS  IX.  11. 

itself  expresses  the  idea  of  its  being  sovereign,  i.  e.,  of  having  its 
ground  in  the  divine  mind  and  not  in  its  objects.  Hence,  in 
2  Tim.  i.  9,  it  is  said,  "  Who  hath  called  us  not  according  to 
our  works,  but  according  to  his  own  purpose,  &c.,  see  Eph. 
i.  11,  iii.  11.  The  words  {xaz  ixXoy^v)  according  to  election^  are 
designed  to  fix  more  definitely  the  nature  of  this  purpose.  The 
word  election  often  means  the  act  of  choice  itself,  as  1  Thess. 
i.  4,  "  Knowing,  brethren  beloved,  your  election  of  God."  In 
this  sense,  the  clause  means,  'the  purpose  of  God  in  reference 
to  election,  or  in  relation  to  this  choice.'  This  view  of  the 
passage  is  perfectly  consistent  with  the  context.  The  choice 
was  made  prior  to  birth,  in  order  that  the  true  nature  of  the 
purpose  of  God  in  reference  to  it  might  appear.  It  is  objected 
to  this  interpretation  that  the  hXoyj  (election)  follows  the 
Trpod^soiC  (the  purpose)  and  not  the  reverse.  This  does  not 
amount  to  much.  It  relates  merely  to  the  order  of  conception. 
We  can  conceive  of  God's  electing  some  to  eternal  life,  and 
then  purposing  to  save  them,  as  well  as  his  purposing  to  save 
them  and  then  electing  them.  The  real  meaning  is  expressed 
by  giving  xaz  ixXoyy^u  an  adjective  force,  the  electing  purpose^ 
electivum  Dei  propositum,  as  Bengel  renders  it.  Others  give 
ixXo-jij  here  the  sense  of  free  choice,  or  free  will.  '  The  purpose 
according  to  free  choice,  for,  free  or  sovereign  purpose.'  Many 
commentators  adopt  this  view  of  the  passage.  This  is,  perhaps, 
the  most  common  interpretation.  But  as  the  word  does  not 
occur  in  this  sense  in  the  New  Testament,  the  former  mode  of 
explanation  is  perhaps  to  be  preferred.  Should  stand,  i.  e., 
should  be  established  and  recognised  in  its  true  character,  that 
is,  that  it  might  be  seen  it  was  not  of  works,  hut  of  him  that 
calleth.  This  purpose  of  God,  in  reference  to  election,  or  the 
choice  itself,  is  not  of  works,  i.  e.,  does  not  depend  on  works, 
but  on  him  that  calleth.  It  is  not  to  be  traced  to  works  as  its 
source.  That  is,  as  plainly  as  language  can  express  the  idea, 
the  ground  of  the  choice  is  not  in  those  chosen,  but  in  God  who 
chooses.  In  the  same  sense  our  justification  is  said  to  be  "  not 
of  works,"  Gal.  ii.  16,  and  often;  i.  e.,  is  not  on  the  ground  of 
works;  see  Rom.  xi.  6,  2  Tim.  i.  9.  The  language  of  the 
apostle  in  this  verse,  and  the  nature  of  his  argument,  are  so 
perfectly  plain,  that  there  is  little  diversity  of  opinion  as  to  his 


ROMANS  IX.  11.  487 

general  meaning.  It  is  almost  uniformly  admitted  that  lie  here 
teaches  that  the  election  spoken  of  is  perfectly  sovereign,  that 
the  ground  on  which  the  choice  is  made  is  not  in  men,  but  in 
God.  Commentators  of  every  class  unite  in  admitting  that  the 
apostle  does  here  teach  the  sovereignty  of  God  in  election. 
Unde  sensus  totius  loci  sic  constituitur ;  ut  appareret,  quicquid 
Deus  decernit,  libere  eum  decernere  non  propter  hominis 
meritum,  sed  pro  sua  decernentis  voluntate. — Koppe.  Ut 
benevola  Dei  voluntas  maneret,  ut  quae  non  a  meritis  cujus 
quam  pendeat,  sed  benefactore  ipso. — Noesselt.  Das  der 
Kathschluss  Gottes  fest  stehe,  als  ein  solcher,  der  nicht  abhange 
von  menschlichen  Verdiensten,  sondern  von  dem  gnadigen  oder 
freien  Willen  Gottes.  '  That  the  decree  of  God  might  stand 
firm,  as  one  which  depended  not  on  human  merit,  but  the 
gracious  or  free  will  of  God.' — Flatt.  And  even  Tholuck 
makes  Paul  argue  thus,  "Dass  wie  Gott,  ohne  Anrechte  anzuer- 
kennen,  die  aussere  Theokratie  und  mancherlei  Vortheile 
Ubertrug  wem  er  wollte,  er  so  auch  jetzt  die  innere  dem 
Ubertragt,  oder  den  darein  eingehen  lasst  welchen  er  will." 
'  That  as  God,  without  recognising  any  claims,  committed  the 
external  theocracy  and  manifold  advantages  to  whom  he  pleased, 
so  also  now  he  commits  the  internal  to  whom  he  will,  or  allows 
whom  he  will  to  enter  it. '  To  the  same  effect  Meyer  says,  "  Er 
wollte  namlich  dadurch  fiir  immer  festsetzen,  dass  sein  zufolge 
einer  Auswahl  unter  den  Menschen  eintretender  Beschluss,  mit 
dem  Messianischen  Heile  zu  begliicken,  unabhangig  sei  von 
menschlichen  Leistungen,  und  nur  von  seinem,  des  zum  Messi- 
asheil  Berufenden,  eigenen  Willen  dependire."  His  design  was 
to  establish^  once  for  all,  (the  principle)  that  his  purpose  in 
reference  to  the  choice  of  those  who  were  to  enter  the  Messiah's 
kingdom,  was  independent  of  human  conduct,  and  was  deter- 
mined hy  the  will  of  him  who  calls. 

The  opposers  of  the  doctrine  of  personal  election  endeavour 
to  escape  the  force  of  this  passage,  by  saying  that  the  choice  of 
which  the  apostle  speaks,  is  not  to  eternal  life,  but  to  the  ex- 
ternal advantages  of  the  theocracy ;  and  that  it  was  not  so  much 
individuals  as  nations  or  communities  which  were  chosen  or 
rejected.  With  regard  to  this  latter  objection,  it  may  be 
answered,  1.  That  the  language  quoted  by  the  apostle  from  the 


488  ROMANS  IX.  12. 

Old  Testament  is  there  applied  to  the  individuals,  Jacob  and 
Esau ;  and  that  Jacob,  as  an  individual,  was  chosen  in  preference 
to  his  brother ;  and  that  Paul's  whole  argument  turns  on  this 
very  point.  2.  That  the  choice  of  nations  involves  and  con- 
sists in  the  choice  of  individuals;  and  that  the  same  objections 
obviously  lie  against  the  choice  in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other. 
With  regard  to  the  former  objection,  that  the  choice  here  spoken 
of  is  to  the  external  theocracy  and  not  to  eternal  life,  it  may 
be  answered,  1.  Admitting  this  to  be  the  case,  how  is  the  diffi- 
culty relieved '.f  Is  there  anymore  objection  to  God's  choosing 
men  to  a  great  than  to  a  small  blessing,  on  the  ground  of  his 
own  good  pleasure?  The  foundation  of  the  objection  is  not  the 
character  of  the  blessings  we  are  chosen  to  inherit,  but  the 
sovereign  nature  of  the  choice.  Of  course  it  is  not  met  by 
making  these  blessings  either  greater  or  less.  2.  A  choice  to 
the  blessings  of  the  theocracy,  i.  e.,  of  a  knowledge  and  worship 
of  the  true  God,  involved,  in  a  multitude  of  cases  at  least,  a 
choice  to  eternal  life ;  as  a  choice  to  the  means  is  a  choice  to 
the  end.  And  it  is  only  so  far  as  these  advantages  were  a 
means  to  this  end,  that  their  value  was  worth  consideration. 
3.  The  whole  design  and  argument  of  the  apostle  show  that  the 
objection  is  destitute  of  force.  The  object  of  the  whole  epistle 
is  to  exhibit  the  method  of  obtaining  access  to  the  Messiah's 
kingdom.  The  design  here  is  to  show  that  God  is  at  liberty  to 
choose  whom  he  pleases  to  be  the  recipients  of  the  blessings  of 
this  kingdom,  and  that  he  was  not  confined  in  his  choice  to  the 
descendants  of  Abraham.  His  argument  is  derived  from  the 
historical  facts  recorded  in  the  Old  Testament.  As  God  chose 
Isaac  in  preference  to  Ishmael,  and  Jacob  in  preference  to 
Esau,  not  on  the  ground  of  their  works,  but  of  his  own  good 
pleasure,  so  now  he  chooses  whom  he  will  to  a  participation  of 
the  blessings  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ:  these  blessings  are 
pardon,  purity,  and  eternal  life,  &c.,  &c.  That  such  is  the 
apostle's  argument  and  doctrine,  becomes,  if  possible,  still  more 
plain,  from  his  refutation  of  the  objections  urged  against  it, 
which  are  precisely  the  objections  which  have  ever  been  urged 
against  the  doctrine  of  election. 

Verse  12.  It   was   said   to   Tier,    the   elder   shall  serve  the 
younger.     These  words  are  to  be  connected  with  the  10th  verse, 


ROMANS  IX.  12.  489 

according  to  our  version,  in  this  manner,  "Not  only  this,  but 
Rebecca  also,  when  she  had  conceived,  &c.,  it  was  said  to  her, 
&c."  According  to  this  view,  although  the  construction  is 
irregular,  the  sense  is  sufficiently  obvious.  As  it  was  said  to 
Rebecca  that  the  elder  of  her  sons  should  serve  the  younger, 
prior  to  the  birth  of  either,  it  is  evident  that  the  choice  between 
them  was  not  on  account  of  their  works.  It  has  been  said  that 
this  declaration  relates  not  to  Jacob  and  Esau  personally,  but 
to  their  posterity,  1.  Because  in  Gen.  xxv.  23,  whence  the 
quotation  is  made,  it  is  said,  "  Two  nations  are  within  thy  womb, 
and  the  one  people  shall  be  stronger  than  the  other  people ;  and 
the  elder  shall  serve  the  younger.  2.  Because  Esau  did  not 
personally  serve  Jacob,  although  the  descendants  of  the  one 
were  subjected  to  those  of  the  other.  It  is  no  doubt  true  that 
the  prediction  contained  in  this  passage  has  reference  not  only 
to  the  relative  standing  of  Jacob  and  Esau  as  individuals,  but 
also  to  that  of  their  descendants.  It  may  even  be  allowed  that 
the  latter  was  principally  intended  in  the  annunciation  to 
Rebecca.  But  it  is  too  clear  to  be  denied,  1.  that  this  distinc- 
tion between  the  two  races  presupposed  and  included  a  distinc- 
tion between  the  individuals.  Jacob  was  made  the  special  heir 
to  his  father  Isaac,  obtained  as  an  individual  the  birth-right  and 
the  blessing,  and  Esau  as  an  individual  was  cast  off.  The  one, 
therefore,  was  personally  preferred  to  the  other.  2.  In  Paul's 
application  of  this  event  to  his  ai'gument,  the  distinction 
between  the  two  as  individuals,  was  the  very  thing  referred  to. 
This  is  plain  from  the  11th  verse,  in  which  he  says,  "  The 
children  being  not  yet  born,  neither  having  done  any  good  or 
evil,  &c."  It  is,  therefore,  the  nature  of  the  choice  between  the 
children  that  is  the  point  designed  to  be  presented.  As  to  the 
objection  that  Esau  never  personally  served  Jacob,  it  is  founded 
on  the  mere  literal  sense  of  the  words.  Esau  did  acknowledge 
his  inferiority  to  Jacob,  and  was  in  fact  postponed  to  him  on 
various  occasions.  The  main  idea,  however,  is  that  Esau  for- 
feited his  birthright.  Jacob  was  preferred  to  his  elder  brother, 
and  constituted  head  of  the  theocracy.  In  a  spiritual  or  reli- 
gious sense,  and  therefore  in  the  highest  sense,  or  in  reference 
to  the  highest  interests,  Esau  was  placed  below  Jacob,. as  much 
as  Ishmael  was   below  Isaac.     This  is  the  real  spirit  of  the 


490  ROMANS  IX.  13. 

passage.  This  prophecy,  as  is  the  case  with  all  similar  predic- 
tions, had  various  stages  of  fulfilment.  The  relation  between 
the  two  brothers  during  life ;  the  loss  of  the  birthright  blessing 
and  promises  on  the  part  of  Esau;  the  temporary  subjugation 
of  his  descendants  to  the  Israelites  under  David,  their  final  and 
complete  subjection  under  the  Maccabees ;  and  especially  their 
exclusion  from  the  peculiar  privileges  of  the  people  of  God, 
through  all  the  early  peri(jds  of  their  history,  are  all  included. 
Compare  the  prediction  of  the  subjection  of  Ham  to  his 
brethren;  and  of  Japheth's  dwelling  in  the  tents  of  Shem, 
Gen.  ix.  25—27. 

Verse  13.  As  it  is  ivritten,  Jacob  have  I  loved,  but  Esau 
have  I  hated.  These  words  are  quoted  from  Malachi  i.  2,  3, 
where  the  prophet  is  reproving  the  Jews  for  their  ingratitude. 
As  a  proof  of  his  peculiar  favour,  God  refers  to  his  preference 
for  them  from  the  first,  "  Was  not  Esau  Jacob's  brother,  saith 
the  Lord;  yet  I  loved  Jacob,  and  I  hated  Esau,  &c."  This 
passage,  as  well  as  the  one  quoted  in  ver.  12,  and  just  referred 
to,  relates  to  the  descendants  of  Jacob  and  Esau,  and  to  the 
individuals  themselves ;  the  favour  shown  to  the  posterity  of  the 
one,  and  withheld  from  that  of  the  other,  being  founded  on  the 
distinction  originally  made  between  the  two  brothers.  The 
meaning,  therefore,  is,  that  God  preferred  one  to  the  other,  or 
chose  one  instead  of  the  other.  As  this  is  the  idea  meant  to 
be  expressed,  it  is  evident  that  in  this  case  the  word  hate  means 
to  love  less,  to  regard  and  treat  with  less  favour.  Thus  in 
Gen.  xxix.  33,  Leah  says,  she  was  hated  by  her  husband ;  while 
in  the  preceding  verse,  the  same  idea  is  expressed  by  saying, 
"Jacob  loved  Rachel  more  than  Leah,"  Matt.  viii.  24,  Luke 
xiv.  26;  "If  a  man  come  to  me  and  hate  not  his  father  and 
mother,  &c."  John  xii.  25.  The  quotation  from  the  prophet 
may  be  considered  either  as  designed  in  confirmation  of  the 
declaration  that  the  elder  should  serve  the  younger ;  or  it  may 
be  connected  in  sense  with  the  close  of  the  11th,  '  God  is  sove- 
reign in  the  distribution  of  his  favours,  as  it  is  written,  Jacob 
have  I  loved,  and  Esau  have  I  hated;'  the  distinction  made 
between  these  two  individuals  being  cited  as  an  illustration  and 
confirmation  of  the  apostle's  doctrine. 

The  doctrine  of  the  preceding  Aerses  is,  that  God  is  per- 


ROMANS  IX.  14,  15.  491 

fectly  sovereign  in  the  distribution  of  his  favours,  that  the 
ground  of  his  selecting  one  and  rejecting  another  is  not 
their  works,  but  his  own  good  pleasure.  To  this  doctrine 
there  are  two  plausible  objections;  first,  it  is  not  consistent 
with  the  divine  justice,  ver.  14 ;  second,  it  is  incompatible  with 
human  responsibility,  ver.  19.  To  the  former  the  apostle 
answers,  first,  God  claims  distinctly  in  his  word  this  prerogative, 
ver.  15 ;  and  secondly,  he  obviously  exercises  it,  as  is  seen  in  the 
dispensations  of  his  providence,  ver.  17.  Here  again  the  sense  is 
so  plain  that  commentators  of  all  classes  agree  in  their  inter- 
pretations. Thus  Meyer  says,  "  God  does  not  act  unjustly  in  his 
sovereign  choice ;  since  he  claims  for  himself  in  the  Scriptures 
the  liberty  to  favour  or  to  harden,  whom  he  will." 

Verse  14.  What  shall  we  say  then,  is  there  unrighteousness 
with  Ciod?  Grod  forbid.  The  apostle,  according  to  his  usual 
manner,  proposes  the  objection  to  his  own  doctrine  in  the  form 
of  a  question,  denies  its  validity,  and  immediately  subjoins  his 
reason;  see  Rom.  iii.  5,  Gal.  iii.  21.  The  obvious  objection 
here  presented  is,  that  it  is  unjust  in  God,  thus,  according  to 
his  own  purpose,  to  choose  one  and  reject  another.  This  Paul 
denies,  and  supports  his  denial  by  an  appeal,  in  the  first  place, 
to  Scripture,  and  the  second,  to  experience.  It  will  be 
remarked  that  these  arguments  of  the  apostle  are  founded  on 
two  assumptions.  The  first  is,  that  the  Scriptures  are  the  word 
of  God;  and  the  second,  that  what  God  actually  does  cannot 
be  unrighteous.  Consequently  any  objection  which  can  be 
shown  to  militate  against  either  an  express  declaration  of 
Scripture,  or  an  obvious  fact  in  providence,  is  fairly  answered. 
And  if,  as  is  almost  always  the  case,  when  it  militates  against 
the  one,  it  can  be  shown  to  militate  against  the  other,  the 
answer  is  doubly  ratified. 

Verse  15.  For  G-od  saith  to  Moses,  I  will  have  mercy  on 
whom  I  will  have  mercy,  and  I  will  have  compassion  on  whom 
I  will  have  compassion.  The  connection  and  argument  are 
obvious.  '  It  is  not  unjust  in  God  to  exercise  his  sovereignty 
in  the  distribution  of  his  mercies, /or  he  expressly  claims  the 
right.'  The  passage  quoted  is  from  the  account  of  the  solemn 
interview  of  Moses  with  God.  In  answer  to  the  prayer  of  the 
prophet  for  his  people  and  for  himself,  God  answered,  "I  will 


492  ROMANS  IX.  16. 

proclaim  my  name  before  thee,  and  will  be  gracious  to  whom  I 
will  be  gracious,  &c."  Exodus  xxxiii.  19.  It  is,  therefore,  a 
formal  declaration  of  a  divine  prerogative.  The  form  of  expres- 
sion /  will  do  what  I  will,  or  I  do  what  I  do,  is  here,  as  in 
Ezek.  xvi.  23,  2  Sam.  xv.  20,  designed  to  convey  the  idea  that 
it  rests  entirely  with  the  agent  to  act  or  not,  at  his  pleasure. 
The  ground  of  decision  is  in  himself.  In  the  connection  of 
this  verse  with  the  former,  therefore,  it  is  obvious  that  Paul 
quotes  this  declaration  to  prove  that  God  claims  the  sovereignty 
which  he  had  attributed  to  him.  In  order  to  avoid  the  force 
of  this  passage,  many  deny  that  it  expresses  the  sentiment  of 
the  apostle.  They  consider  this  and  the  following  verses  as 
the  objections  of  a  Jewish  fatalist,  a  mode  of  interpretation  so 
obviously  inconsistent  with  the  context,  and  even  the  proper 
force  of  the  words,  that  it  is  mentioned  only  to  show  how  hard 
it  is  to  close  the  eyes  against  the  doctrine  which  the  apostle  so 
clearly  teaches.  Gottes  Erbarmen  und  Huld  sei  lediglich  yon 
seinem  eigenenen  unumschranten  Willen  abhangig;  auf  wen 
einmal  sein  Erbarmen  gerichtet  sei,  dem  werde  er's  erweisen. — 
Meyer.  God's  mercy  and  favour  depend  solely  on  his  own 
sovereign  will,  he  will  manifest  that  mercy  towards  him  to  whom 
it  has  been  once  directed.  Tittmann,  in  his  Synon.  in  N.  21, 
says  that  the  difference  between  oixretpEcu  and  iXeelv  is,  that  the 
former  denotes  the  feeling  experienced  in  view  of  the  sufferings 
of  others,  and  the  latter  the  desire  to  relieve  them.  The  differ- 
ence is  very  much  the  same  as  that  between  our  words  com- 
passion and  mercy. 

Verse  16.  So  then,  it  is  not  of  hhn  that  willeth,  nor  of  him 
that  runneth,  &c.  If  the  ground  of  the  decision  or  choice  of 
the  objects  of  mercy  be  in  God,  as  asserted  in  ver.  15,  then 
that  it  is  not  in  man,  is  a  conclusion  which  flows  of  course  from 
the  previous  declarations.  The  word  it  refers  to  the  result  con- 
templated in  the  context,  viz.,  the  attainment  of  the  divine 
favour,  or  more  definitely,  admission  into  the  Messiah's  king- 
dom. This  result,  when  attained,  is  to  be  attributed  not  to  the 
wishes  or  efforts  of  man,  but  to  the  mercy  of  God.  That  one, 
therefore,  is  taken,  and  another  left,  that  one  is  introduced  into 
this  kingdom  and  another  not,  is  to  be  referred  to  the  fact 
asserted  in  the  preceding  verse,  that  "  God  will  have  mercy  on 


ROMANS  IX.  17.  493 

whom  he  will  have  mercj."  This  seems  plainly  to  have  been 
the  apostle's  meaning.  It  is  said,  however,  that  the  efforts  here 
declared  to  be  vain  are  those  of  the  self-righteous ;  that  Paul 
intends  to  say  that  the  Jews,  by  the  works  of  the  law,  could 
not  attain  the  favour  of  God,  &c.  But  no  such  sentiment  is 
expressed  by  the  apostle ;  it  is  all  supplied  by  the  commentator. 
The  sentiment,  moreover,  is  not  only  not  expressed,  but  it  is  in 
direct  contradiction  to  the  language  and  design  of  the  apostle. 
He  says  the  ground  of  choice,  or  of  admission  into  the  kingdom 
of  Christ,  is  not  in  us;  this  interpretation  says  it  is  in  us. 
Paul  says  it  is  in  God ;  this  interpretation  says,  it  is  not  in 
God.  It  is  neither  the  will  nor  the  efforts  of  men  which  deter- 
mines their  admission  into  Christ's  kingdom.  It  depends  on 
the  sovereign  will  of  God.  Neque  in  voluntate  nostra,  neque 
in  conatu  esse  situm,  ut  inter  electos  censeamur :  sed  totum  id 
divinae  bonitatis,  quae  nee  volentes,  nee  conantes,  ac  ne  cogit- 
antes  quidem  ultro  assumit. — Calvin.  This  is  not  an  interpre- 
tation peculiar  to  Augustinians.  It  is,  as  has  been  shown,  the 
view  of  the  passage  adopted  by  commentators  of  every  shade 
of  doctrine.  Also  ist's  (niimlich  Gottes  Erbarmen  und  Huld 
zu  empfangen)  nicht  von  dem  wollenden  noch  von  dem  Laufen- 
den  abhangig,  sondern  von  dem  barmherzig  scienden  Gotte. — 
Me^er. 

Verse  17.  For  the  Scripture  saith  unto  Pharaoh,  &c.  The 
connection  of  this  verse  is  with  the  14th,  rather  than  with  the 
one  immediately  preceding.  Paul  is  still  engaged  in  answering 
the  objection  proposed  in  the  14th  verse.  There  is  no  injustice 
with  God,  because  he  saith  to  Moses,  'I  will  have  mercy,  &c.' 
ver.  15,  and  because  the  Scripture  saith  to  Pharaoh,  for  this 
purpose,  &c.  ver.  17.  His  second  answer  to  the  objection  is, 
that  God,  in  point  of  fact,  does  exercise  this  sovereignty,  as  is 
evident  from  the  case  of  Pharaoh.  Pharaoh  was  no  worse  than 
many  other  men  who  have  obtained  mercy ;  yet  God,  for  wise 
and  benevolent  reasons,  withheld  froni  him  the  saving  influences 
of  his  grace,  and  gave  him  up  to  his  own  wicked  heart,  so 
that  he  became  more  and  more  hardened,  until  he  was  finally 
destroyed.  God  did  nothing  to  Pharaoh  beyond  his  strict 
deserts.  He  did  not  make  him  wicked;  he  only  forbore  to 
make  him  good,  by  the  exertion  of  special  and  altogether  un- 


494  ROMANS  IX.  17. 

merited  grace.  The  reason,  therefore,  of  Pharaoh's  being  left 
to  perish,  while  others  were  saved,  was  not  that  he  was  worse 
than  others,  but  because  God  has  mercy  on  whom  he  will  have 
mercy ;  it  was  because,  among  the  criminals  at  his  bar,  he 
pardons  one  and  not  another,  as  seems  good  in  his  sight.  He, 
therefore,  who  is  pardoned,  cannot  say  it  was  because  I  Avas 
better  than  others;  while  he  who  is  condemned  must  ac- 
knowledge that  he  receives  nothing  more  than  the  just  recom- 
pense of  his  sins.  In  order  to  establish  his  doctrine  of 
the  divine  sovereignty,  Paul  had  cited  from  Scripture  the 
declaration  that  God  shows  mercy  to  whom  he  will;  he 
now  cites  an  example  to  show  that  he  punishes  whom  he  will. 
I^ven  for  this  same  purpose  have  I  raised  thee  up.  This  is 
what  God  said  to  Pharaoh,  as  recorded  in  Exod.  ix.  16.  The 
meaning  of  the  declaration  may  be  variously  explained.  In  the 
Old  Testament,  the  Hebrew  word  used  in  the  passage  quoted, 
means  literally,  /  have  caused  thee  to  stand.  This  is  understood 
by  some  as  meaning,  I  have  called  thee  into  existence.  2.  By 
others,  /  have  preserved  thee.  3.  By  others,  /  have  raised 
thee  up  as  king.  4.  By  others,  /  have  placed  and  continued 
thee  in  thy  post.  Either  of  these  interpretations  admits  of 
being  defended  on  philological  grounds  more  or  less  satis- 
factory. The  first  is  sufficiently  suitable  to  the  word  used  by 
the  apostle,  but  does  not  agree  so  well  with  the  original.  The 
Hebrew  word  iJaS,  in  Hiphil,  is  used  not  only  in  the  literal 
sense,  to  cause  to  standi  but  also  in  the  sense,  to  continue,  to 
preserve,  as  in  1  Kings  xv.  4,  and  also  to  appoint  (to  office). 
The  LXX.  (changing  the  person)  have,  in  Exod.  ix.  16,  dtz- 
Ttjp'qd^r^Z,  equivalent  to  vivus  servatus  es,  thou  hast  been  kept 
alive.  Paul  renders  the  Hebrew  i^r^yeipd  ae,  which  answers  to 
the  use  of  the  word  in  Nehem.  vi.  7,  "  Thou  hast  appointed 
(caused  to  appear)  prophets ;  and  Dan.  xi.  11,  "  The  king  of 
the  south  shall  set  forth  a  great  multitude."  In  no  case,  how- 
ever, is  the  Hebrew  word  used  for  calling  into  existence  in  the 
sense  of  creating.  For  the  second,  it  may  be  urged  that  verbs 
in  the  form  (Hiphil)  used  in  the  passage  quoted,  signify  fre- 
quently the  continuance  of  a  thing  in  the  state  which  the 
simple  form  of  the  verb  expresses.  Thus  the  verb  meaning  to 
live,  in  this  form,  signifies  to  preserve  alive.  Gen.  vi.  19,  20, 


ROMANS  IX.  18.  495 

xix.  19,  &c.  Besides,  the  particular  word  used  in  Exod.  ix.  16, 
signifies  to  preserve,  to  cause  to  continue,  in  1  Kings  xv.  4, 
2  Chron.  ix.  8,  Prov.  xxix.  4,  &c.  The  third  interpretation  is 
too  definite,  and  supplies  an  idea  not  in  the  text.  The  fourth, 
which  is  only  a  modification  of  the  second,  is  perhaps  the 
nearest  to  the  apostle's  intention.  '  For  this  purpose  have  I 
raised  thee  up,  and  placed  thee  where  thou  art ;  and  instead 
of  cutting  thee  ofi"  at  once,  have  so  long  endured  thy  obstinacy 
and  wickedness.'  It  is  not  the  design  of  Pharaoh's  creation  that 
is  here  asserted;  but  the  end  for  which  God  determined  his 
appearance  and  position  in  the  history  of  the  world.  Nor  does 
the  apostle  refer  Pharaoh's  wickedness  to  God  as  its  author, 
but  his  appearance  at  that  period,  the  form  in  which  the  evil  of 
his  heart  developed  itself,  and  the  circumstances  attending  its 
manifestation,  were  all  determined  by  the  providence  of  God, 
and  ordered  for  the  promotion  of  his  infinitely  wise  and  bene- 
volent purposes. 

That  I  might  show  my  power  in  thee,  and  that  my  name 
might  he  declared  in  all  the  earth.  This  is  the  reason  why 
God  dealt  with  Pharaoh  in  the  manner  described.  It  was  not 
that  he  was  worse  than  others,  but  that  God  might  be  glorified. 
This  is  precisely  the  principle  on  which  all  punishment  is 
inflicted.  It  is  that  the  true  character  of  the  divine  lawgiver 
should  be  known.  This  is  of  all  objects,  when  God  is  con- 
cerned, the  highest  and  most  important;  in  itself  the  most 
worthy,  and  in  its  results  the  most  beneficent.  The  ground, 
therefore,  on  which  Pharaoh  was  made  an  object  of  the  divine 
justice,  or  the  reason  why  the  law  was  in  his  case  allowed  to 
take  its  course,  is  not  to  be  sought  in  any  peculiarity  of  his 
character  or  conduct  in  comparison  with  those  of  others,  but  in 
the  sovereign  pleasure  of  God.  This  result  of  the  argument 
Paul  formally  states  in  the  next  verse. 

Verse  18.  Therefore  hath  he  mercy  on  whom  he  ivill  have 
mercy,  and  whom  he  will  he  hardeneth.  This  is  the  conclusion, 
not  merely  from  the  preceding  verse,  but  from  the  whole 
passage,  vs.  14 — 17.  This  perfect  sovereignty  in  the  selection 
of  the  objects  of  his  mercy  and  of  his  judgment,  Paul  had 
attributed  to  God  in  ver.  11,  and,  in  the  subsequent  verses, 
had  proved  that  he  claims  and  exercises  it,  both  in  reference 


496  ROMANS  IX.  18. 

to  the  recipients  of  his  favour,  ver.  15,  and  the  objects  of 
his  wrath,  ver.  15.  The  doctrine,  therefore,  is  fully  estab- 
lished. 

The  latter  clause  of  this  verse,  whom  he  will  he  hardeneth^ 
admits  of  various  explanations.  The  word  may  be  taken  either 
in  its  ordinary  meaning,  or  it  may  be  understood  in  its  second- 
ary sense.  According  to  the  latter  view,  it  means  to  treat 
harshly,  to  punish.  This  interpretation,  it  must  be  admitted, 
is  peculiarly  suited  to  the  context,  '  He  hath  mercy  on  whom 
he  will,  and  he  punishes  whom  he  will.'  Nor  is  it  entirely 
destitute  of  philological  support.  In  Job  xxxix.  16,  it  is  said 
of  the  ostrich,  "she  treateth  hardly  her  young."  But,  on  the 
other  hand,  it  is  liable  to  serious  objections.  1.  It  is  certain 
that  it  is  a  very  unusual  sense  of  the  word,  and  opposed  to  the 
meaning  in  which  it  frequently  occurs.  There  should  be  very 
strong  reasons  for  departing  from  the  usual  meaning  of  an 
expression  so  common  in  the  Scriptures.  2.  It  is  inconsistent 
with  those  passages  in  the  Old  Testament  which  speak  of  the 
hardening  of  Pharaoh's  heart.  3.  It  removes  no  difficulty ;  for 
what,  according  to  the  usual  sense  of  the  word,  is  here  said,  is 
frequently  said  elsewhere. 

1.  The  common  sense  of  the  word  is,  therefore,  doubtless,  to 
be  preferred,  whom  he  will  he  hardens.  This  is  by  many  under- 
stood to  express  a  direct  and  positive  influence  of  God  on  the 
soul  in  rendering  it  obdurate.  But,  in  the  first  place,  this  inter- 
pretation is  by  no  means  necessary,  as  will  presently  be  shown ; 
and,  in  the  second,  it  can  hardly  be  reconciled  with  our  ideas 
of  the  divine  character. 

2.  Others  think  that  this  phrase  is  to  be  explained  by  a 
reference  to  that  scriptural  usage,  according  to  which  God  is 
said  to  do  whatever  indirectly  and  incidentally  results  from  his 
agency ;  on  the  same  principle  that  a  father  is  said  to  ruin  his 
children,  or  a  master  his  servants,  or  that  Christ  is  said  to 
produce  wars  and  divisions.  Thus,  Isa.  vi.  10,  the  prophet  is 
commanded  to  make  the  heart  of  the  people  fat,  and  their  ears 
heavy,  and  shut  their  eyes,  &c.,  as  though  to  him  were  to  be 
ascribed  the  incidental  effects  of  his  preaching.  In  the  same 
way  the  gospel  is  the  cause  of  death  (not  of  misery  only,  but  of 
insensibility  also,)  to  those  who  hear  and  disregard  it. 


ROMANS  IX.  18.  497 

3.  Nearly  allied  to  this  mode  of  explanation  is  that  which 
rests  on  the  assumption  that  God  is  said  to  do  what  he  permits 
to  be  done.  Reference  is  made  to  such  passages  as  the  follow- 
ing. 2  Sam.  xii.  11,  "I  will  give  thy  wives  unto  thy  neigh- 
bour," i.  e.,  I  will  permit  him  to  take  them.  2  Sam.  xvi.  10, 
"The  Lord  hath  said  unto  him,  curse  David."  Isa.  Ixiii.  17, 
"  0  Lord,  why  hast  thou  caused  us  to  err  from  thy  ways,  and 
hardened  our  hearts  from  thy  fear."  Deut.  ii.  30,  "For  the 
Lord  thy  God  hardened  his  spirit,  (Sihon's,)  that  he  might 
deliver  him  into  thy  hand."  1  Kings  xi.  23,  "The  Lord 
stirred  up  another  adversary."  Ps.  cv.  25,  "He  turned  their 
hearts  to  hate  his  people."  In  2  Sam.  xxiv.  1,  God  is  said  to 
have  moved  David  to  number  the  people;  but  in  1  Chron. 
xxi.  1,  Satan  is  said  to  have  provoked  David  to  number  Israel. 
From  these  and  similar  passages,  it  is  evident  that  it  is  a 
familiar  scriptural  usage,  to  ascribe  to  God  effects  which  he 
allows  in  his  wisdom  to  come  to  pass.  Hence,  almost  every 
thing  is,  at  times,  spoken  of  as  if  it  was  produced  by  divine 
agency,  although,  in  a  multitude  of  other  places,  these  same 
results  are  referred,  as  in  some  of  the  examples  cited  above,  to 
their  immediate  authors.  According  to  this  mode  of  representa- 
tion, God  is  understood  as  merely  permitting  Pharaoh  to  harden 
his  own  heart,  as  the  result  is  often  expressly  referred  to  Pha- 
raoh himself,  Exod.  viii.  15,  32,  &c. 

4.  But  there  seems  to  be  more  expressed  by  the  language  of 
the  text  than  mere  permission,  because  it  is  evidently  a  puni- 
tive act  that  is  here  intended,  and  because  this  view  does  not 
suit  the  other  passages  in  which  God  is  said  to  give  sinners  up 
to  the  evil  of  their  own  hearts,  Rom.  i.  24,  28.  It  is  probable, 
therefore,  that  the  judicial  abandonment  of  men  "to  a  repro- 
bate mind,"  a  punitive  withdrawing  of  the  influences  of  his 
Holy  Spirit,  and  the  giving  them  up  to  the  uncounteracted 
operation  of  the  hardening  or  perverting  influences  by  which 
they  are  surrounded,  are  all  expressed  by  the  language  of  the 
apostle.  In  this  God  does  no  more  than  what  he  constantly 
threatens  to  do,  or  which  the  Scriptures  declare  he  actually 
does,  in  the  case  of  those  who  forsake  him ;  and  nothing  more 
than  every  righteous  parent  does  in  reference  to  a  reprobate 
son.  This,  in  connection  with  the  principle  referred  to  above, 
32 


498  ROMANS  IX.  19. 

(in  No.  2,)  seems  as  mucli  as  can  fairly  be  considered  as  in- 
cluded in  the  expressions.  De  Wette  here  wisely  says,  that  we 
are  to  exclude,  on  the  one  hand,  the  idea  that  God  merely 
permits  evil,  and  on  the  other,  that  he  is  its  author,  and  to  hold 
fast  the  doctrine,  that  evil  is  from  man,  and  that  God  orders 
and  directs  it,  and  that  to  punishment.  It  is  to  be  remembered 
that  the  hardening  of  the  sinner's  heart  is  itself  punitive.  It 
supposes  evil,  and  is  its  punishment.  As  a  ruined  constitution 
is  at  once  the  inevitable  consequence  and  the  punishment  of 
intemperance,  so  insensibility,  obduracy  of  conscience,  and 
blindness  of  mind,  are  the  penal  consequences  of  a  course  of  sin, 
and  become  themselves  the  just  ground  of  further  punishment, 
because  they  are  in  their  own  nature  evil.  This  we  instinc- 
tively recognise  as  true  in  our  moral  judgments  of  men.  A 
man  whom  a  long  course  of  crime  has  rendered  perfectly 
callous,  is,  on  account  of  his  callousness,  justly  the  object  of 
execration  and  abhorrence.  It  is  therefore  not  only  a  doctrine 
of  Scripture  (Rom.  i.  24)  that  sin  is  the  punishment  of  sin,  but  a 
fact  of  experience.  Satis  est,  says  Augustine,  (Ad  Sixtum  Ep.,) 
interim  Christiano  ex  fide  adhuc  viventi,  et  nondum  cernenti 
quod  perfectum  est,  sed  ex  parte  scienti,  nosse  vel  credere  quod 
neminem  Deus  liberet  nisi  gratuitS  miseracordia  per  Dominum 
nostrum  Jesus  Christum,  et  neminem  damnet  nisi  aequisima 
veritate  per  eundem  Dominum  nostrum  Jesum^  Christum. 
Cur  autem  ilium  potius  quam  ilium  liberet  aut  non  liberet, 
scrutetur  qui  potest  judiciorum  ejus  tam  magnum  profundum, 
— verumtamen  caveat  praecipitium.  The  Lutheran  Church, 
after  the  days  of  Luther,  endeavoured  to  find  a  middle  ground 
between  the  Augustinian  and  the  semi-Pelagian  doctrine.  In 
the  Form  of  Concord  it  is  taught  that  the  choice  of  the  vessels 
of  mercy  is  to  be  referred  to  the  good  pleasure  of  God,  but  the 
passing  by  of  the  non-elect  is  to  be  referred  to  their  voluntary 
resistance  of  his  offered  grace.  Election  is  founded,  according 
to  this  view,  on  the  sovereignty  of  God,  but  pretention  on  the 
foresight  of  impenitence.  This,  however,  seems  to  involve  a 
contradiction ;  for  if  faith  be  the  gift  of  God,  the  purpose  to 
give  it  only  to  some,  involves  the  purpose  not  to  give  it  to 
others.  Besides,  it  is  the  very  object  of  the  apostle  in  the 
whole  context  to  teach  the  sovereigntv  of  God  in  dealing  with 


ROMANS  IX.  19.  499 

the  vessels  of  wrath.  This  Olshausen  admits.  "This  refer- 
ence," he  says,  "to  the  foreknowledge  of  God,  although  not 
unfounded  so  far  as  evil  is  concerned,  tends  rather  to  pervert 
than  to  elucidate  the  passage,  inasmuch  as  the  precise  object  of 
the  apostle  is  to  render  prominent  the  sovereignty  of  the  divine 
will." 

Verse  19.  Thou  wilt  then  say  unto  me,  why  doth  he  yet  find 
fault?  for  who  hath  resisted  his  will?  This  is  the  second 
leading  objection  to  the  apostle's  doctrine.  If  it  be  true,  as  he 
had  just  taught,  that  the  destiny  of  men  is  in  the  hands  of  God, 
if  it  is  not  of  him  who  willeth,  or  of  him  that  runneth,  but  of 
God  that  showeth  mercy,  what  can  we  do  ?  If  the  fact  that 
one  believes  and  is  saved,  and  another  remains  impenitent  and 
is  lost,  depends  on  God,  how  can  we  be  blamed  ?  Can  we  resist 
his  will?  It  will  at  once  be  perceived  that  this  plausible  and 
formidable  objection  to  the  apostle's  doctrine  is  precisely  the 
one  which  is  commonly  and  confidently  urged  against  the  doc- 
trine of  election.  There  would  be  no  room  either  for  this 
objection,  or  for  that  contained  in  the  14th  verse,  if  Paul  had 
merely  said  that  God  chooses  those  whom  he  foresees  would 
repent  and  believe ;  or  that  the  ground  of  distinction  was  in  the 
different  conduct  of  men.  It  is  very  evident,  therefore,  that  he 
taught  no  such  doctrine.  How  easy  and  obvious  an  answer  to 
the  charge  of  injustice  would  it  have  been  to  say,  God  chooses 
one  and  rejects  another  according  to  their  works.  But  teach- 
ing as  he  does  the  sovereignty  of  God  in  the  selection  of  the 
subjects  of  his  grace  and  of  the  objects  of  his  wrath,  declaring 
as  he  does  so  plainly,  that  the  destiny  of  men  is  determined 
by  his  sovereign  pleasure,  the  objection  (how  can  he  yet  find 
fault?)  is  plausible  and  natural.  To  this  objection  the  apostle 
gives  two  answers ;  1.  That  it  springs  from  ignorance  of  the 
true  relation  between  God  and  men  as  Creator  and  creatures, 
and  of  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  divine  authority  over  us, 
vs.  20,  21 ;  2.  That  there  is  nothing  in  his  doctrine  inconsistent 
with  the  divine  perfections ;  since  he  does  not  make  men 
wicked,  but  from  the  mass  of  wicked  men,  he  pardons  one  and 
punishes  another,  for  the  wisest  and  most  benevolent  reasons, 
vs.  22,  23. 

Why  doth  he  yet  find  fault  ?     If  God  hardens  us,  why  does 


500  ROMANS  IX.  20. 

he  blame  us  for  being  hard.  Gross  as  is  this  perversion  of  the 
apostle's  doctrine  on  the  part  of  the  objector,  Paul  at  first 
rebukes  the  spirit  in  which  it  is  made,  before  he  shows  it  to  be 
unfounded.  It  is  not  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible,  that  God  first 
makes  men  wicked,  and  then  punishes  them  for  their  wicked- 
ness. The  Scriptures  only  assert,  what  we  see  and  know  to  be 
true,  that  God  permits  men,  in  the  exercise  of  their  own  free 
agency,  to  sin,  and  then  punishes  them  for  their  sins,  and  in 
proportion  to  their  guilt.  He  acts  towards  them  as  a  perfectly 
righteous  judge,  so  that  no  one  can  justly  complain  of  his  deal- 
ings. This  strictness  in  the  administration  of  justice,  is,  how- 
ever, perfectly  consistent  with  the  sovereignty  of  God  in  deter- 
mining whom  he  will  save,  and  whom  he  will  permit  to  sufier 
the  just  recompense  of  their  deeds.  Who  hath  resisted,  rather, 
who  resists,  i.  e.,  who  can  resist.  The  perfect  dvd^iarvjxe  (as 
sazTjxev)  is  present;  see  xiii.  2.  His  will,  i.  e.,  his  purpose, 
^oukrj[ica. 

Verse  20.  Nay,  hut,  0  man,  who  art  thou  that  repliest 
against  Grod  ?  Shall  the  thing  formed,  &c.  In  these  words  we 
have  both  a  reproof  and  an  answer.  The  reproof  is  directed 
against  the  irreverent  spirit,  whence  such  cavils  always  arise. 
After  the  clear  proof  given  in  the  preceding  verses,  that  God 
claims  this  sovereignty  in  his  word,  and  exercises  it  in  his 
providence,  it  argues  great  want  of  reverence  for  God,  to  assert 
that  this  claim  involves  the  grossest  injustice.  It  is  very 
common  with  the  sacred  writers,  and  with  Christ  himself,  when 
questions  or  cavils  are  presented,  to  direct  their  answers  more 
to  the  feeling  which  the  question  indicated,  than  to  the  question 
itself.  Tholuck  refers,  in  illustration  of  this  remark,  to  John 
iii.  3,  Matt.  viii.  19,  20,  22,  xix.  16,  xxii.  29.  But  in  this  case, 
besides  this  reproof  of  presumption  in  attempting  to  call  our 
Maker  to  account,  instead  of  considering  that  the  mere  fact 
that  God  claims  any  thing  as  his  right,  is  evidence  enough  that 
it  is  just,  there  is  a  direct  answer  to  the  dijBficulty.  The  objec- 
tion is  founded  on  ignorance  or  misapprehension  of  the  true 
relation  between  God  and  his  sinful  creatures.  It  supposes  that 
he  is  under  obligation  to  extend  his  grace  to  all.  Whereas  he 
is  under  obligation  to  none.  All  are  sinners,  and  have  forfeited 
every  claim  to  his  mercy;  it  is,  therefore,  the  prerogative  of 


ROMANS  IX.  21.  501 

God  to  spare  one  and  not  another;  to  make  one  vessel  to 
honour,  and  another  to  dishonour.  He,  as  their  sovereign 
Creator,  has  the  same  right  over  them  that  a  potter  has  over 
the  clay.  It  is  to  be  borne  in  mind,  that  Paul  does  not  here 
speak  of  the  right  of  God  over  his  creatures  as  creatures,  but 
as  sinful  creatures,  as  he  himself  clearly  intimates  in  the  next 
verses.  It  is  the  cavil  of  a  sinful  creature  against  his  Creator, 
that  he  is  answering;  and  he  does  it  by  showing  that  God  is 
under  no  obligation  to  give  his  grace  to  any,  but  is  as  sovereign 
a§  the  potter  in  fashioning  the  clay.  Nay^  hut,  0  man, 
fieuouuye.  This  particle  is  often  used  in  replies,  and  is  partly 
concessive  and  partly  corrective,  as  in  Luke  xi.  28,  where  it  is 
rendered,  yea,  rather,  in  Rom.  x.  18,  yes,  verily.  It  may  here, 
as  elsewhere,  have  an  ironical  force.  Sometimes  it  is  strongly 
affirmative,  as  in  Phil.  iii.  8,  and  at  others,  introduces,  as  here, 
a  strong  negation  or  repudiation  of  what  had  been  said. 

Shall  the  thing  formed  say  to  him  that  formed  it.  Why  hast 
thou  made  me  thus?  See  Isaiah  xlv.  9.  In  this  clause  Paul 
presents  mainly  the  idea  of  God's  right,  and  in  the  subsequent 
verses  he  shows  that  nothing  unjust  is  included  in  the  right 
here  claimed.  We  are  at  his  mercy ;  and  it  is  the  height  of 
irreverence  and  folly  for  us  to  call  him  to  account  for  the 
manner  in  which  he  may  see  fit  to  dispose  of  us. 

Verse  21.  Hath  not  the  potter  potoer  over  the  clay,  out  of  the 
same  lump  to  make  one  vessel,  kc,  &c.  The  Avord  k^ouaia  ren- 
dered power,  means  also  authority  and  right.  In  this  case  it 
means,  the  lawful  power  or  right ;  he  not  only  can  do  it,  but  he 
has  a  perfect  right  to  do  it ;  see  the  use  of  the  Greek  word  in 
Matt.  xxi.  23,  1  Cor.  viii.  9,  and  frequently  elsewhere.  This 
verse  is  merely  an  illustration  of  the  idea  contained  in  the  last 
clause  of  the  preceding.  The  Creator  has  a  perfect  right  to 
dispose  of  his  creatures  as  he  sees  fit.  From  the  very  idea  of 
a  creature,  it  can  have  no  claim  on  the  Creator;  whether  it 
exists  at  all,  or  how,  or  where,  from  the  nature  of  the  case, 
must  depend  on  him,  and  be  at  his  sovereign  disposal.  The 
illustration  of  this  truth  which  follows,  is  peculiarly  appropriate. 
When  the  potter  takes  a  piece  of  clay  into  his  hands,  and 
approaches  the  wheel,  how  entirely  does  it  rest  with  himself  to 
determine  the  form  that  clay  shall  take,  and  the  use  to  which 


502  ROMANS  IX.  22,  23. 

it  shall  be  destined  ?  Can  any  thing  be  more  unreasonable, 
than  that  the  clay,  supposing  it  endued  with  intelligence,  should 
complain  that  the  form  given  it  was  not  so  comely,  or  the  use 
to  which  it  was  destined  not  so  honourable,  as  those  which  fell 
to  the  lot  of  a  different  portion  of  the* same  mass?  Are  not 
these  points  on  which  the  potter  has  a  most  perfect  right  to 
decide  for  himself,  and  regarding  which  the  thing  formed  can 
have  no  right  to  complain  or  question?  And  so  it  is  with  God; 
the  mass  of  fallen  men  are  in  his  hands,  and  it  is  his  right  to 
dispose  of  them  at  pleasure ;  to  make  all  vessels  unto  honour, 
or  all  unto  dishonour,  or  some  to  one  and  some  to  the  other. 
These  are  points  on  which,  from  the  nature  of  the  relation,  we 
have  no  right  to  question  or  complain.  The  illustration  here 
employed  occurs  elsewhere  in  Sci'ipture,  as  in  Isa.  Ixiv.  8, 
"But  now,  0  Lord,  thou  art  our  Father;  we  are  the  clay,  and 
thou  art  our  Potter;  and  we  all  are  the  work  of  thy  hands." 
See  also  Isa.  xxix.  16,  and  Jer.  xviii.  3 — 6,  "Then  I  went  down 
to  the  potter's  house,  and,  behold,  he  wrought  a  work  on  the 
wheels.  And  the  vessel  which  he  made  of  clay  was  marred  in 
the  hands  of  the  potter ;  so  he  made  it  again  another  vessel,  as 
seemed  good  to  the  potter  to  make  it.  0  house  of  Israel, 
cannot  I  do  with  you  as  this  potter  ?  saith  the  Lord.  Behold, 
as  clay  is  in  the  potter's  hand,  so  are  ye  in  my  hand,  0  house 
of  Israel."  In  the  sovereignty  here  asserted,  it  is  God  as 
moral  governor,  and  not  God  as  creator,  who  is  brought  to 
view.  It  is  not  the  right  of  God  to  create  sinful  beings  in 
order  to  punish  them,  but  his  right  to  deal  with  sinful  beings 
according  to  his  good  pleasure,  that  is  here,  and  elsewhere 
asserted.     He  pardons  or  punishes  as  he  sees  fit. 

Verses  22,  23.  But  what  if  God,  willing  to  shoiv  his  wrath, 
and  to  make  his  power  knozon,  endured  with  much  long-suffering 
the  vessels  of  wrath  fitted  to  destruction;  and  that  he  might 
make  known  the  riches  of  his  glory  on  the  vessels  of  mercy, 
which  he  had  afore  prepared  unto  glory,  even  us,  &c.  ?  These 
verses  contain  Paul's  second  answer  to  the  difficulty  presented 
in  the  19th  verse.  He  had  shown  in  vs.  20,  21,  that  in  virtue 
of  his  relation  to  men  as  his  sinful  creatures,  God  is  at  perfect 
liberty  to  dispose  of  them  at  his  pleasure,  pardoning  one  and 
punishing  another,  as  seemeth  good  in  his  sight.     He  now  shows 


ROMANS  IX.  22,  23.  503 

that  in  the  exercise  of  this  right  there  is  nothing  unreasonable 
or  unjust,  nothing  of  which  his  creatures  have  the  least  right 
to  complain.  The  punishment  of  the  wicked  is  not  an  arbitrary 
act,  having  no  object  but  to  make  them  miserable;  it  is 
designed  to  manifest  the  displeasure  of  God  against  sin,  and  to 
make  known  his  true  character.  On  the  other  hand,  the  salva- 
tion of  the  righteous  is  designed  to  display  the  riches  of  his 
grace.  Both  in  the  punishment  of  the  one  class  and  the  salva- 
tion of  the  other,  most  important  and  benevolent  ends  are  to  be 
answered.  And  since  for  these  ends  it  was  necessary  that 
some  should  be  punished,  while  others  might  be  pardoned,  as 
all  are  equally  undeserving,  it  results  from  the  nature  of  the 
case  that  the  decision  between  the  vessels  of  wrath  -and  the 
vessels  of  mercy  must  be  left  to  God.  The  apostle  would, 
moreover,  have  it  remarked,  that  even  in  the  necessary  punish- 
ment of  the  wicked,  God  does  not  proceed  with  any  undue 
severity,  but,  on  the  contrary,  deals  with  them  with  the  greatest 
long-suffering  and  tenderness.  Such  seems  to  be  the  general 
purport  and  object  of  these  difficult  verses. 

The  attentive  reader  will  perceive,  that  even  with  the  inser- 
tion of  the  word  what,  which  has  nothing  to  answer  to  it  in  the 
original,  and  with  a  sign  of  inten'ogation  at  the  end  of  ver.  24, 
the  construction  of  the  passage  in  our  version  remains  ungram- 
matical  and  the  sense  incomplete.  As  the  difficulty  exists  in 
the  Greek  text,  and  not  merely  in  our  translation,  the  explana- 
tions which  have  been  proposed  are  very  numerous.  Many  of 
these  are  presented  and  canvassed  by  Tholuck  and  Wolf,  par- 
ticularly the  latter.  There  are  three  views  taken  of  the  con- 
nection, which  are  the  most  plausible.  1.  The  two  verses  are 
considered  as  both  referring  to  the  rejection  of  the  wicked,  for 
which  ver.  22  assigns  one  reason,  and  ver.  23  another.  '  What 
if  God,  willing  to  show  his  wrath,  endured  with  much  long-suf- 
fering the  vessels  of  wrath,  so  that  also  he  might  make  known  the 
riches  of  his  glory  on  the  vessels  of  mercy,  &c.'  The  treatment 
of  the  wicked  was  not  only  to  display  the  divine  displeasure 
against  sin,  but  also,  by  contrast,  his  mercy  towards  his  people.* 

*  So,  among  others,  Calvin,  who  translates  verse  23  thus,  Ut  notas  quoque 
faceret  divitias  gloriae  suae  in  vasa  misericordiae,  quae  praeparavit  in  gloriam. 
And  in  his  comment  he  remarks,  Est  autem  secunda  ratio  quae  gloriam  Dei  iu 


504  ROMANS  IX.  22,  23. 

But,  in  order  to  make  the  two  verses  cohere  in  this  way,  it  is 
necessary  to  transpose  the  words  at  the  beginning  of  the  23d 
verse,  and  read  that  also,  instead  of  and  that,  which  alters  the 
sense  materially,  while  for  such  a  transposition  there  is  no 
authority.  Besides  this,  it  makes  ver.  23  too  subordinate  to 
ver.  22 ;  that  is,  it  makes  God's  dealings  towards  the  vessels  of 
mercy  merely  an  incidental  topic,  instead  of  having  equal 
prominence  with  his  treatment  of  the  vessels  of  wrath.  From 
the  context  we  are  led  to  expect  a  vindication  of  his  course,  not 
only  in  the  destruction  of  the  latter,  but  in  the  salvation  of  the 
former. 

2.  A  second  explanation  is  to  make  the  second  clause  of  ver. 
22  and  the  beginning  of  ver.  23  depend  on  the  first  words  of 
ver.  22.  '  God  willing  to  show  his  wrath  and  make  his  power 
known,  and  (willing)  that  the  riches  of  his  glory  should  be 
known,  &c.'  This  gives  a  good  sense,  though  the  construction 
is  suddenly,  and  rather  violently,  changed  at  the  beginning  of 
ver.  23,  "that  he  might  make  known,"  being  substituted  for 
the  infinitive,  "to  make  known." 

3.  Tholuck  makes  ver.  24  parallel  with  ver.  23,  and  explains 
the  passage  thus,  '  God,  willing  to  manifest  his  wrath,  bore  with 
the  vessels  of  wrath ;  and  that  he  might  make  known  his  mercy, 
called  us,  &c.'  This  gives  a  very  good  sense,  but  assumes  the 
construction  to  be  irregular  to  a  very  unusual  degree.  Though 
the  second  method  be  somewhat  irregular,  it  seems,  on  the 
whole,  the  least  objectionable,  and  gives  a  sense  obviously  con- 
sistent with  the  context.  The  meaning  of  the  apostle  is  suffi- 
ciently plain.  He  asks  a  question  d  de,  but  if.  '  What  can 
be  said  if  God,  to  manifest  his  justice,  bears  with  the  vessels  of 
wrath,  and  to  manifest  his  grace  prepares  the  vessels  of  mercy?' 
There  is  nothing  in  this  inconsistent  with  the  character  of  God, 
or  the  rights  of  his  creatures. 

reproborum  interitu  manifestat ;  quod  ex  eo  luculentius  divinae  bonitatis  erga 
electos  amplitudo  confirmatur. 

Much  in  the  same  way  Winer  explains  the  passage,  connecting  the  xa.)  hn 
of  ver.  23,  immediately  with  the  verb  mvsj-wv  of  ver.  22,  "Wenn  Gott  beschliess- 
end  mit  aller  Langmuth  die  Gefttsse  seines  Zornes  trug  *  *  auch  in  der 
Absicht,  den  Reichthum  *  *  zuerkennen  zu  geben."  "If  God  willing  *  *  * 
bore  with  all  long-suffering  the  vessels  of  wrath  *  *  *  *  also  with  the  view 
to  make  known  the  riches,  &c."     Gram.  p.  443. 


ROMANS  IX.  22,  23.  505 

The  two  objects  which  Paul  here  specifies  as  designed  to  be 
answered  by  the  punishment  of  the  wicked,  are  the  manifesta- 
tion of  the  wrath  of  God,  and  the  exhibition  of  his  power. 
The  word  wrath  is  used  here  as  in  chap.  i.  18,  for  the  divine 
displeasure  against  sin,  the  calm  and  holy  disapprobation  of 
evil,  joined  with  the  determination  to  punish  those  who  com- 
mit it.*  The  power  of  God  is  conspicuously  displayed  in  the 
destruction  of  the  wicked,  no  matter  how  mighty  or  numerous 
they  may  be.  Though  the  inherent  ill-desert  of  sin  must  ever 
be  regarded  as  the  primary  ground  of  the  infliction  of  punish- 
ment, a  ground  which  would  remain  in  full  force,  were  no  bene- 
ficial results  anticipated  from  the  misery  of  the  wicked,  yet 
God  has  so  ordered  his  government  that  the  evils  which  sinners 
incur  shall  result  in  the  manifestation  of  his  character,  and  the 
Consequent  promotion  of  the  holiness  and  happiness  of  his  intel- 
ligent creatures  throughout  eternity. 

God  treats  the  wicked,  not  as  a  severe  judge,  but  with  much 
long  suffering.  The  expression  vessels  of  wrath,  no  doubt  sug- 
gests itself  from  the  illustration  of  the  potter  used  in  the  pre- 
ceding verse ;  though  the  term  vessel  is  used  not  unfrequently 
in  reference  to  men.  Acts  ix.  15,  1  Peter  iii.  7.  Vessels  of 
wrath,  i.  e.,  vessels  to  receive  wrath,  or  which  are  destined  to 
be  the  objects  of  wrath.  This  is  a  modification  of  the  expres- 
sion in  ver.  21,  axtuo(;  erV  aTcfiiav,  vessel  unto  dishonour. 

Fitted  to  destruction,  xaT/jprcafiiva  eic;  dncohiav.  This  phrase 
admits  of  two  interpretations.  The  passive  participle  may  be 
taken  as  a  verbal  adjective,  fit  for  destruction.  This  leaves 
undetermined  the  agency  by  which  this  fitness  was  effected. 
Comp.  2  Cor.  x.  10,  1  Peter  i.  8.  In  favour  of  this  view  is  the 
change  of  expression  adopted  in  ver.  23.  Of  the  vessels  of 
wrath,  it  is  simply  said  that  they  are  fit  for  destruction ;  but  of 
the  vessels  of  mercy,  that  God  prepares  them  for  glory.  Why 
this  change,  if  the  apostle  did  not  intend  to  intimate  that  the 
agency  of  God  is  very  diff"erent  in  the  one  case  from  what  it  is  in 
the  other?  Besides,  as  it  is  the  object  of  the  writer  to  vindicate 
the  justice  of  God  in  these  dispensations,  it  is  specially  perti- 
nent to  represent  the  vessels  of  wrath  as  fit  for  destruction  in 

*  Ira  Dei  non,  perturbatio  animi  ejus  est,  sed  judicium  quo  irrogatur  poena 
peccato.     August.  De  Civit.  Dei,  1.  15.  c.  35, 


506  ROMANS  IX.  22,  23. 

the  sense  of  deserving  it.  The  other  interpretation  assumes 
that  the  reference  is  to  God,  and  that  xazapriafieva  has  its  full 
participial  force ;  prepared  (by  God)  for  destruction.  This  is 
adopted  not  only  by  the  majority  of  Augustinians,  but  also  by 
many  Lutherans  and  Neologists.  This  sense  they  say  is  de- 
manded by  the  context.  God  is  compared  to  a  potter,  who 
prepares  one  vessel  to  honour,  and  another  to  dishonour.  So 
God  prepares  some  for  wrath,  and  some  fctr  mercy.  This, 
however,  is  not  to  be  understood  in  a  supralapsarian  sense. 
God  does  not  create  men  in  order  to  destroy  them.  The  pre- 
paration intended  is  that  illustrated  in  the  case  of  Pharaoh. 
God  did  not  make  him  wicked  and  obdurate ;  but  as  a  punish- 
ment for  his  sin,  he  so  dealt  with  him  that  the  evil  of  his  nature 
revealed  itself  in  a  form,  and  under  circumstances,  which  made 
him  a  fit  object  of  the  punitive  justice  of  God.  The  dealings 
of  God  as  a  sovereign  are  often,  by  the  Jewish  writers,  spoken 
of  in  the  same  terms  as  those  here  used;  see  Moed  Katon, 
fol.  9,  1.  Exiit  filia  vocis,  dixitque  eis;  vos  omnes  ordinati 
estis  ad  vitam  seculi  futuri.  Megilla,  fol.  12,  2.  Memuchariy 
Esther  i.  14,  i.  e.,  Haman.  Cur  vocatur  nomen  ejus  Memucan? 
quia  ordinatus  est  ad  poenas.  i2.  Bechai  in  Pentateuch,  fol. 
132.  Gentes  ordinatae  ad  gehennam;  Israel  vero  ad  vitam. 
Fol.  220,  4,  Duas  istas  gentes  vocat  Salomo  duas  filias,  dicitque 
ad  gehennam  ordinatas  esse.  Bechoroth^  fol.  8,  2.  R.  Joseph 
docuit,  hi  sunt  Persae,  qui  preparati  sunt  in  gehennam.  Wet- 
stein  on  Acts  xiii.  48. 

Verse  23.  And  that  he  might  make  known  the  riches  of 
Ms  glory,  &c.  The  grammatical  construction  of  this  clause,  as 
before  remarked,  is  doubtful.  The  Iva  yvajptarj  may  depend  on 
^veyx£v,  he  bore  with  the  vessels  of  wrath  in  order  that  he 
might  make  known  the  riches  of  his  glory  on  the  vessels  of 
mercy;  or,  they  may  be  connected  with  xazi^pzia/iiva,  vessels 
prepared  for  destruction,  in  order  that  he  might  make  known,  &c. 
Or,  we  must  assume  that  Iva  Yvcopiarj  is  used  for  the  infinitive, 
and  that  this  clause  is  coordinate  with  the  preceding.  '  What 
if  God,  to  manifest  his  wrath,  bears  with  the  wicked,  and  to 
make  known  his  mercy,  prepares  others  for  glory.'  The  vessels 
of  mercy,  i.  e.,  those  destined  to  mercy.  The  riches  of,  i.  e., 
the  abundance  or  greatness  of,  his  glory.     The  glory  refers  to 


ROMANS  IX.  24.  SOT 

the  divine  majesty  or  excellence  which  is  glorious,  that  is,  the 
proper  object  of  admiration.  It  may  be  used  of  the  divine  per- 
fection in  general,  or  for  any  of  the  divine  attributes  in  particu- 
lar, for  his  power,  as  Kom.  vi.  4,  or  his  mercy,  in  Eph.  iii.  16. 
Here  it  should  be  taken  in  its  comprehensive  sense,  although 
from  its  opposition  to  the  word  wrath,  the  reference  is  specially 
to  the  mercy  of  God.  That  is  the  attribute  most  conspicuously 
displayed  in  the  salvation  of  sinners. 

Which  he  had  afore  prepared,  Trporjvocfiaaev.  This  word  is 
used  both  in  the  sense  of  preparing  beforehand,  and  of  predes- 
tining. Many  prefer  the  latter  sense  here ;  whom  he  had  pre- 
destined to  glory.  Comp.  Eph.  ii.  10.  But  the  context  is  in 
favour  of  the  ordinary  meaning  of  the  word.  God,  as  the  pot- 
ter, prepares  or  fashions  the  vessels  of  mercy  unto  glory.  The 
word  glory  here  evidently  refers  to  the  glorious  state  of  exist- 
ence for  which  God  is  preparing  his  people,  and  in  hope  of 
which  they  now  rejoice,  v.  2. 

Verse  24.  Even  us  whom  he  hath  called,  not  of  the  Jews 
only,  but  also  of  the  G-entiles.  We  are  the  vessels  of  his 
mercy,  even  we  whom  he  hath  called,  i.  e.,  effectually  intro- 
duced by  his  Spirit  into  the  kingdom  of  Christ;  see  chap.  viii. 
28,  30.  The  use  of  the  masculine  relative  ou^,  although  the 
antecedent  axeuT^  e^iowc  is  neuter,  may  be  explained  as  a  con- 
structio  ad  sensum,  or  better  as  a  case  of  attraction ;  o5c  taking 
the  gender  of  the  following  )y//6tc.  Winer,  §  63,  1,  How 
naturally  does  the  apostle  here  return  to  the  main  subject  of 
discussion !  How  skilfully  is  the  conclusion  brought  out  at 
which  he  has  continually  aimed !  God  chose  Isaac  in  prefer- 
ence to  Ishmael,  Jacob  in  preference  to  Esau ;  it  is  a  preroga- 
tive which  he  claims  and  exercises,  of  selecting  from  among  the 
guilty  family  of  men,  whom  he  pleases  as  the  objects  of  his 
mercy,  and  leaving  whom  he  pleases  to  perish  in  their  sins, 
unrestricted  in  his  choice  by  the  descent  or  previous  conduct 
of  the  individuals.  He  has  mercy  upon  whom  he  will  have 
mercy.  He  calls  men,  therefore,  from  among  the  Gentiles  and 
from  among  the  Jews  indiscriminately.  This  is  the  conclusion  at 
which  the  apostle  aimed.  The  Gentiles  are  admitted  into  the 
Messiah's  kingdom,  vs.  25,  26 ;  and  the  great  body  of  the  Jews 
are  excluded,  ver.  27.     This  conclusion  he  confirms  by  explicit 


508  ROMANS  IX.  6—24. 

declarations  of  Scripture.  Ex  disputatione,  quam  hactenus  de 
libertate  divinae  electionis  habuit,  duo  consequebantur :  nempe 
Dei  gratiam  non  ita  inclusam  esse  in  populo  Judaico,  ut  non  ad 
alias  quoque  nationes  emanare,  et  in  orbem  universum  efFundere 
se  posset :  deinde  ne  sic  quidera  alligatam  esse  Judaeis,  ut  ad 
omnes  Abrahae  filios  secundum  carnem  sine  exceptione  perve- 
niat. — Calvin. 

DOCTRINE. 

1.  No  external  circumstance,  no  descent  from  pious  parents, 
no  connection  with  the  true  church,  can  secure  admission  for 
men  into  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  vs.  6 — 12. 

2.  Paul  teaches  clearly  the  doctrine  of  the  personal  election 
of  men  to  eternal  life,  an  election  founded  not  on  works,  but  on 
the  good  pleasure  of  God.  The  choice  is  to  eternal  life,  and 
not  to  external  privileges  merely.  1.  Because  the  very  point 
to  be  illustrated  and  established  through  this  and  the  two  fol- 
lowing chapters,  is  the  free  admission  of  men  into  the  Messiah's 
kingdom,  and  its  spiritual  and  eternal  blessings.  2.  Because 
the  language  of  the  apostle  seems  of  itself  to  preclude  the  other 
idea,  in  vs.  15,  16,  and  especially  in  ver.  18,  "Therefore  he 
hath  mercy  on  whom  he  will,  and  whom  he  will  he  hardeneth." 
This  is  not  applicable  to  the  reception  of  men  to  a  state  of 
peculiar  external  privileges  or  their  rejection  from  it.  3.  The 
case  of  Pharaoh  is  not  an  illustration  of  the  refusal  to  admit 
some  men  to  peculiar  privileges.  4.  The  choice  is  between  the 
vessels  of  mercy  and  vessels  of  wrath ;  vessels  of  mercy  chosen 
unto  glory,  not  unto  church  privileges,  and  vessels  of  wrath 
who  were  to  be  made  the  examples  of  God's  displeasure  against 
sin.  5.  The  character  of  the  objections  to  the  apostle's  doc- 
trine shows  that  such  was  the  nature  of  the  choice.  If  this 
election  is  to  eternal  life,  it  is,  of  course,  a  choice  of  individu- 
als, and  not  of  communities,  because  communities,  as  such,  do 
not  inherit  eternal  life.  This  is  still  further  proved  by  the 
cases  of  Isaac  and  Ishmael,  and  Jacob  and  Esau,  between 
whom,  as  individuals,  the  choice  was  made.  From  the  illustra- 
tion derived  from  the  case  of  Pharaoh.  From  the  objections 
presented  in  vs.  14,  19.  From  the  answer  to  these  objections 
in  vs.  15,  16,  20,  23,  especially  from  the  passage  just  referred 


ROMANS  IX.  6—24.  509 

to,  which  speaks  of  the  vessels  of  mercy  prepared  unto  glory; 
which  cannot  be  applied  to  nations  or  communities.      This  elec- 
tion is  sovereign,  i.  e.,  is  founded  on  the  good  pleasure  of  God, 
and  not  on  any  thing  in  its  objects.    1.  Because  this  is  express- 
ly asserted.     The  choice  between  Jacob  and  Esau  was  made 
prior  to  birth,  that  it  might  be  seen  that  it  was  not  founded  on 
works,  but  on  the  good  pleasure  of  God,  ver.  11.     The  same  is 
clearly  stated  in  ver.  16,  "It  is  not  of  him  that  willeth  or  of 
him  that  runneth,  but  of  God  that  showeth  mercy;"  and  also 
in  ver.  18,  "  Therefore  he  hath  mercy  on  whom  he  will,  &c." 
The    decision   rests   with    God.     2.    Because   otherwise  there 
would  be  no  shadow  of  objection  to  the  doctrine.     How  could 
men  say  it  was  unjust  if  God  chose  one  and  rejected  another 
.according  to  their  works?     And  how  could  any  one  object,  as 
in  ver.  19,  'that  as  the  will  of  God  could  not  be  resisted,  men 
were  not  to  be  blamed,'  if  the  decision  in  question  did  not 
depend   on   the   sovereign  will  of   God?     How  easy  for   the 
apostle  to  have  answered  the  objector,  'You  are  mistaken,  the 
choice  is  not  of  God ;  he  does  not  choose  whom  he  will,  but  those 
who  he  sees  will  choose  him.     It  is  not  his  will,  but  man's  that 
decides  the  point.'     Paul  does  not  thus  answer.     He  vindicates 
the   doctrine  of  the  divine  sovereignty.     The  fact,  therefore, 
that  Paul  had  to  answer  the  same  objections  which  are  now 
constantly  urged  against  the  doctrine  of  election,  goes  far  to 
show   that   that    doctrine   was   his.     3.    That   the  election   is 
sovereign,  is  taught  elsewhere  in  Scripture.     In  2  Tim.  i.  9,  it 
is  said  to  be  "not  according  to  our  works,  but  according  to  his 
own  purpose  and  grace."    Eph.  i.  5,  it  is  said  to  be  "according 
to  the  good  pleasure  of  his  will,"  i.  e,,  his  sovereign  pleasure. 
4.  This  view  alone  harmonises  with  the  doctrine,  that  all  good 
thoughts  and  right  purposes  and  feelings  proceed  from  God, 
which  is  clearly  taught  in  the  Scriptures.     For  if  the  purpose 
not  to  resist  'common  grace,'  is  a  right  purpose,  it  is  of  God, 
and,  of  course,  it  is  of  him  that  one  man  forms  it,  and  another 
does  not.     5.  This  doctrine  is  alone  consistent  with  Christian 
experience.     "Why   was   I   made    to   hear  thy  voice?"     No 
Christian  answers  this  question  by  saying,  because  I  was  better 
than  others. 

8.  The  two  leading  objections  against  the  doctrine  of  election, 


610  ROMANS  IX.  6—24. 

viz.,  that  it  is  inconsistent  with  the  divine  character,  and  incom- 
patible with  human  responsibility,  are  answered  by  the  apostle. 
It  cannot  be  unjust,  because  God  claims  and  exercises  the  right 
of  sovereign  choice.  It  is  not  inconsistent  with  human  respon- 
sibility, because  God  does  not  make  men  wicked.  Though,  as 
their  Sovereign,  he  has  a  right  to  dispose  of  wicked  men  as  he 
pleases.  He  can,  of  the  same  corrupt  mass,  choose  one  to 
honour,  and  the  other  to  dishonour,  vs.  14 — 23. 

4.  Scripture  must  ever  be  consistent  with  itself.  The  rejec- 
tion of  the  Jews  could  not  be  inconsistent  with  any  of  God's 
promises,  ver.  6. 

5.  The  true  children  of  God  become  such  in  virtue  of  a 
divine  promise,  or  by  the  special  exercise  of  his  grace.  They 
are  born  not  of  the  will  of  the  flesh,  but  of  God,  ver.  8. 

6.  Though  children  prior  to  birth  do  neither  good  nor  evil, 
yet  they  may  be  naturally  depraved.  They  neither  hunger 
nor  thirst,  yet  hunger  and  thirst  are  natural  appetites.  They 
exercise  neither  love  nor  anger,  yet  these  are  natural  passions. 
They  know  probably  neither  joy  nor  sorrow,  yet  are  these 
natural  emotions,  ver.  11. 

7.  The  manifestation  of  the  divine  perfections  is  the  last  and 
highest  end  of  all  things,  vs.  17,  22,  23. 

8.  The  fact  that  the  destiny  of  men  is  in  the  hands  of  God 
(that  it  is  not  of  him  that  willeth,  or  him  that  runneth,)  is  not 
inconsistent  with  the  necessity  of  the  use  of  means.  The  fact 
that  the  character  of  the  harvest  depends  on  the  sovereign 
pleasure  of  God,  does  not  render  the  labour  of  the  husbandman 
of  no  account.  The  same  God  who  says,  "I  will  have  mercy 
on  whom  I  will,"  says  also,  "Work  out  your  salvation  with 
fear  and  trembling."  The  sovereignty  of  God  and  the  neces- 
sity of  human  efforts  are  both  clearly  taught  in  the  Scriptures. 
At  times  the  former,  as  in  this  chapter,  at  times  the  latter  doc- 
trine is  most  insisted  upon.  Neither  should  be  forgotten  or 
neglected,  as  both  combine  to  produce  the  right  impression  on 
the  mind,  and  to  lead  us  to  God  in  the  way  of  his  own  appoint- 
ment, ver.  16. 

9.  Men,  considered  as  the  objects  of  election,  are  regarded  as 
fallen.  It  is  from  the  corrupt  mass  that  God  chooses  one 
vessel  to  honour  and  one  to  dishonour,  vs.  22,  23. 


ROMANS  IX.  6—24.  fill 

10.  The  judicial  abandonment  of  men  to  their  own  ways,  the 
giving  them  up  to  work  out  their  own  destruction,  is  a  righteous 
though  dreadful  doom,  vs.  18,  22,  also  chap.  i.  24,  26. 

REMARKS. 

1.  If  descent  from  Abraham,  participation  in  all  the  privi- 
leges of  the  theocracy,  the  true  and  only  church,  jPiiled  to 
secure  for  the  Jews  the  favour  of  God,  how  foolish  the  expecta- 
tion of  those  who  rely  on  outward  ordinances  and  church-rela- 
tions as  the  ground  of  their  acceptance,  vs.  6 — 13. 

2.  The  doctrine  of  the  sovereignty  of  God  in  the  choice  of 
the  objects  of  his  mercy  should  produce,  1.  The  most  profound 
■humility  in  those  who   are    called    according  to    his    purpose. 

They  are  constrained  to  say,  "Not  unto  us,  not  unto  us,  but 
unto  thy  name  be  all  the  glory."  2.  The  liveliest  gratitude, 
that  we,  though  so  unworthy,  should  from  eternity  have  been 
selected  as  the  objects  in  which  God  displays  "  the  riches  of 
his  glory."  3.  Confidence  and  peace,  under  all  circumstances, 
because  the  purpose  of  God  does  not  change ;  whom  he  has 
predestinated,  them  he  also  calls,  justifies,  and  glorifies. 
4.  Diligence  in  the  discharge  of  all  duty,  to  make  our  calling 
and  election  sure.  That  is,  to  make  it  evident  to  ourselves  and 
others,  that  we  are  the  called  and  chosen  of  God.  We  should 
ever  remember  that  election  is  to  holiness,  and  consequently  to 
live  in  sin,  is  to  invalidate  every  claim  to  be  considered  as  one 
of  "God's  elect." 

3.  As  God  is  the  immutable  standard  of  right  and  truth,  the 
proper  method  to  answer  objections  against  the  doctrines  we 
profess,  is  to  appeal  to  what  God  says,  and  to  what  he  does. 
Any  objection  that  can  be  shown  to  be  inconsistent  with  any 
declaration  of  Scripture,  or  with  any  fact  in  providence,  is  suffi- 
ciently answered,  vs.  15,  17. 

4.  It  should,  therefore,  be  assumed  as  a  first  principle,  that 
God  cannot  do  wrong.  If  he  does  a  thing,  it  must  be  right. 
And  it  is  much  safer  for  us,  corrupt  and  blinded  mortals,  thus 
to  argue,  than  to  pursue  the  opposite  course,  and  maintain  that 
God  does  not  and  cannot  do  so  and  so,  because  in  our  judgment 
it  would  be  wrong,  vs.  15 — 19. 

5.  All  cavilling  against  God  is  wicked.     It  is  inconsistent 


512  ROMANS  IX.  6—24. 

with  our  relation  to  him  as  our  Creator.     It  is  a  manifestation 
of  self-ignorance,  and  of  irreverence  toward  God,  ver.  20. 

6.  What  proof  of  piety  is  there  in  believing  our  own  eyes, 
or  in  receiving  the  deductions  of  our  own  reasoning?  But  to 
confide  in  God,  when  clouds  and  darkness  are  round  about  him ; 
to  be  sure  that  what  he  does  is  right,  and  that  what  he  says  is 
true,  when  we  cannot  see  how  either  the  one  or  the  other  can 
be,  this  is  acceptable  in  his  sight.  And  to  this  trial  he 
subjects  all  his  people,  vs.  20 — 24. 

7.  If  the  manifestation  of  the  divine  glory  is  the  highest 
end  of  God  in  creation,  providence,  and  redemption,  it  is  the 
end  for  which  we  should  live  and  be  willing  to  die.  To  substi- 
tute any  other  end,  as  our  own  glory  and  advantage,  is  folly, 
sin,  and  self-destruction,  vs.  17,  22,  23. 

8.  The  fact  that  God  says  to  some  men,  "Let  them  alone;" 
that  "he  gives  them  up  to  a  reprobate  mind;"  that  he  with- 
holds from  them,  in  punishment  of  their  sins,  the  influences  of 
his  Spirit,  should  fill  all  the  impenitent  with  alarm.  It  should 
lead  them  to  obey  at  once  his  voice,  lest  he  swear  in  his  wrath 
that  they  shall  never  enter  into  his  rest,  vs.  17,  18. 

9.  We  and  all  things  else  are  in  the  hands  of  God.  He 
worketh  all  things  after  the  counsel  of  his  own  will.  The  Lord 
reigns,  let  the  earth  rejoice,  vs.  14 — 24. 


ROMANS   IX.  25—33. 

ANALYSIS. 

The  conclusion  at  which  the  apostle  had  arrived  in  the  pre- 
ceding section,  was,  that  God  is  at  liberty  to  select  the  objects 
of  his  mercy,  indiscriminately,  from  among  the  Gentiles  and 
Jews.  This  conclusion  he  now  confirms  by  the  declarations  of 
the  Old  Testament,  according  to  which  it  is  clear,  1.  That 
those  were  to  be  included  in  the  kingdom  of  God,  who  origi- 
nally were  considered  as  aliens,  vs.  25,  26 ;  and  2.  That,  as  to 
the  Israelites,  only  a  small  portion  should  attain  to  the  blessings 
of  the  Messiah's  reign,  and  of  course,  the  mere  being  a  Jew  by 
birth  was  no  security  of  salvation,  vs.  27 — 29.     The  inference 


ROMANS  IX.  25.  513 

from  all  this  is,  that  the  Gentiles  are  called,  and  the  Jew^s,  as 
Jews,  are  rejected,  vs.  30,  31.  The  reason  of  this  rejection  is 
that  they  would  not  submit  to  the  terms  of  salvation  presented 
in  the  gospel,  ver.  32.  As  it  had  been  long  before  predicted, 
thej  rejected  their  Messiah,  taking  offence  at  him,  seeing 
in  him  no  form  or  comeliness  that  they  should  desire  him, 
ver.  33. 

COMMENTARY. 
Vekse  25.  The  first  part  of  the  general  conclusion,  contained 
in  the  24th  verse,  is,  that  the  Gentiles  are  eligible  to  the  bless- 
ings of  Christ's  kingdom.  This  the  apostle  confirms  by  two 
passages  from  the  prophecies  of  Hosea,  which  express  the 
general  sentiment,  that  those  who,  under  the  old  economy, 
were  not  regarded  as  the  people  of  God,  should  hereafter 
(i.  e.,  under  the  Messiah)  become  his  people.  The  first  passage 
cited  is  from  Hosea  ii.  23,  which  in  our  version  is,  "  I  will  have 
mercy  on  her  that  had  not  obtained  mercy ;  and  I  will  say  to 
them  which  were  not  my  people,  thou  art  my  people."  The 
Hebrew,  however,  admits  of  the  rendering  given  by  the  apostle, 
as  the  word  translated  to  have  mercy  may  signify  to  love.  The 
difficulty  with  regard  to  this  passage  is,  that  in  Hosea  it  evi- 
dently has  reference  not  to  the  heathen,  but  to  the  ten  tribes. 
Whereas,  Paul  refers  it  to  the  Gentiles,  as  is  also  done  by  Peter, 
1  Peter  ii.  10.  This  difficulty  is  sometimes  gotten  over  by 
giving  a  different  view  of  the  apostle's  object  in  the  citation, 
land  making  it  refer  to  the  restoration  of  the  Jews.  But  this 
interpretation  is  obviously  at  variance  with  the  context.  It  is 
more  satisfactory  to  say,  that  the  ten  tribes  were  in  a  heathen- 
ish state,  relapsed  into  idolatry,  and,  therefore,  what  was  said 
of  them,  is  of  course  applicable  to  others  in  like  circumstances, 
or  of  like  character.  What  amounts  to  much  the  same  thing, 
the  sentiment  of  the  prophet  is  to  be  taken  generally,  'those 
who  were  excluded  from  the  theocracy,  who  were  regarded  and 
treated  as  aliens,  were  hereafter  to  be  treated  as  the  people  of 
God.'  In  this  view,  it  is  perfectly  applicable  to  the  apostle's 
object,  which  was  to  convince  the  Jews,  that  the  blessings  of 
Christ's  kingdom  were  not  to  be  confined  within  the  pale  of  the 
Old  Testament  economy,  or  limited  to  those  who,  in  their 
33 


514  ROMANS  IX.  26,  27,  28. 

external  relations,  were  considered  the  people  of  God ;  on  the 
contrary,  those  who,  according  to  the  rules  of  that  economy, 
were  not  the  people  of  God,  should  hereafter  become  such. 
This  method  of  interpreting  and  applying  Scripture  is  both 
common  and  correct.  A  general  truth,  stated  in  reference  to  a 
particular  class  of  persons,  is  to  be  considered  as  intended  to 
apply  to  all  those  whose  character  and  circumstances  are  the 
same,  though  the  form  or  words  of  the  original  enunciation  may 
not  be  applicable  to  all  embraced  within  the  scope  of  the  general 
sentiment.  Thus  what  is  said  of  one  class  of  heathen,  as  such, 
is  applicable  to  all  others,  and  what  is  said  of  one  portion  of 
aliens  from  the  Old  Testament  covenant,  may  properly  be 
referred  to  others. 

Verse  26.  And  it  shall  come  to  pass,  that  in  the  place  where 
it  was  said  to  them,  Ye  are  not  my  people,  &c.  This  quotation 
is  more  strictly  conformed  to  the  Hebrew  than  the  preceding. 
It  is  from  Hosea  i.  10.  The  sentiment  is  the  same  as  before. 
The  combination  of  two  or  more  disconnected  passages  in  one 
quotation,  is  not  unusual  in  the  New  Testament,  and  was  a 
common  practice  with  the  Jewish  Rabbins,  who,  as  Surenhusius 
says,  Interdum  plura  loca  sacrae  Scripturae  in  unum  contrahi 
Solent  ad  efficaciorem  rei  demonstrationem.  In  the  place  where, 
iv  TO)  TOTTOJ  ob,  is  by  many  understood  of  Palestine.  The  pro- 
phet predicts  the  ten  tribes  should  be  restored,  and  that  they 
should  be  again  recognised  as  part  of  the  people  of  God  in  the 
very  place  where  they  had  been  regarded  as  apostates  and  out- 
casts. Others  think  that  the  apostle  refers  to  the  church, 
in  coetu  Christianorum,  ubi  diu  dubitatum  est,  an  recte  Gen- 
tiles reciperentur,  ibi  appellabantur  filii  Dei. — Fritzsche.  Much 
the  most  common  and  natural  explanation  is,  that  the  reference 
is  indefinitely  to  the  heathen  world.  Wherever,  in  every 
place,  where  the  people  had  been  regarded  as  aliens,  they 
should  be  called  the  children  of  God.  That  is,  those  formerly 
not  his  people,  should  become  his  people. 

Verses  27,  28.  The  second  part  of  the  apostle's  conclusion, 
ver.  24,  is,  that  the  Jews,  as  such,  were  not  to  be  included  in 
the  kingdom  of  Christ,  which,  of  course,  is  implied  in  all  those 
predictions  which  speak  of  them  as  in  general  cut  off  and 
rejected.     Two  such  passages  Paul  quotes  from  Isaiah.     The 


ROMANS  IX.  27,  28.  515 

first  is  from  Isaiah  x.  22,  23.  Though  the  number  of  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel  he  as  the  sand  of  the  sea,  a  remnant  shall  be 
saved,  for  he  will  finish  the  work  and  cut  it  short  in  righteous- 
ness: because  a  short  work  tvill  the  Lord  make  in  the  earth. 
This  passage  is  nearer  the  LXX.  translation  than  to  the  Hebrew. 
The  general  sense  is  the  same  in  both,  and  also  in  the  apostle's 
version,  '  However  numerous  the  children  of  Israel  might  be, 
only  a  small  portion  of  them  should  escape  the  judgments  of 
God.'  This  being  the  case,  it  is  evident  that  the  mere  being  a 
Jew  was  never  considered  sufficient  to  secure  the  divine 
favour.  The.  portion  of  the  prophecy  contained  in  ver.  27  is 
the  principal  point,  '  Only  a  few  bf  the  Jews  were  to  be  saved.' 
What  is  contained  in  ver.  28  is  an  amplification,  or  states  the 
converse  of  the  preceding  proposition.  '  Most  of  the  Jews 
should  be  cut  ofi".'  The  passage  in  Isaiah,  therefore,  is  strictly 
applicable  to  the  apostle's  object.* 

Our  version  of  ver.  28  is  consistent  with  the  original,  f  But 
it  may  also  be  rendered,  "  He  will  execute  and  determine  on 
the  judgment  with  righteousness,  for  a  judgment  determined  on, 
will  the  Lord  execute  in  the  earth."  The  word  [Xoyov)  ren- 
dered work  in  our  version,  means  properly  a  word,  something 
spoken,  and  may  refer  to  a  promise,  or  threatening,  according  to 
the  context.  Here  of  course  a  threatening  is  intended;  the 
judgment  threatened  by  the  prophet  in  the  context.  The  word 
{auvreXcbv)  rendered  he  will  finish,  means  bringing  to  an  end, 
and  here  perhaps,  executing  at  once,  bringing  to  an  end  speedily. 
And  the  term  {auvrkyivcov)  translated  cutting  short,  may  mean 
deciding  upon.  See  Dan.  ix.  24,  "  Seventy  weeks  are  deter- 
mined [auvezix-^^rjaav)  upon    my   people."     But  the  ordinary 

*  Sed  quia  id  de  siio  tempore  vaticinatus  est  propheta ;  videndum,  quomodo 
ad  institutum  suum  Paulus  rite  accommodet.  Sic  autem  debet :  Quum  Dominus 
vellet  e  captivitate  Babylonica  populum  suum  liberare,  ex  immensa  ilia  multi- 
tudine  ad  paucissimos  modo  liberationis  suae  beneficium  pervenire  voluit ;  qui 
excidii  reliquiae  merito  dici  possent  prae  numeroso  illo  populo  quem  in  exilio 
perire  sinebat.  Jam  restitutio  ilia  carnalis  veram  ecclesiae  Dei  instaura- 
tionem  figuravit,  quae  in  Christo  peragitur,  imo  ejus  duntaxat  fuit  exordium. 
Quod  ergo  tunc  accidit,  multo  certius  nunc  adimpleri  convenit  in  ipso  libera- 
tionis progressu  et  complemento. — Calvin. 

f  Calvin  translates  it  much  in  the  same  way,  Sermonem  enim  consummans 
et  abbrevians,  quonian  sermonem  abbreviatum  faciei  Dominus  in  terra. 


516  ROMANS  IX.  29. 

sense  of  the  word  is  in  favour  of  our  version,  and  so  is  the  con- 
text.* If  it  were  allowable  to  take  the  same  word  in  different 
senses  in  the  same  passage,  the  verse  might  he  rendered  thus, 
*For  he  will  execute  the  judgment,  and  accomplish  it  speedily, 
for  the  judgment  determined  upon  will  the  Lord  execute  in 
the  earth.'  This  same  word  is  used  in  one  of  these  senses, 
Dan.  ix.  24,  and  in  the  other  in  ver.  26  of  the  same  chapter. 
See,  too,  an  analogous  example  in  1  Cor.  iii.  17,  "  If  any  man 
{(p&eipec)  defile  the  temple  of  God,  him  will  God  {(p^epsi) 
destroy."  Here  the  same  word  is  rendered  correctly,  first 
defile,  and  then  destroy/.  We  may,  therefore,  render  the 
last  clause  of  the  verse  either  as  in  our  version,  or  as  given 
above. 

Verse  29.  The  second  passage  quoted  by  the  apostle  is  from 
Isa.  i.  9,  Except  the  Lord  of  hosts  had  left  us  a  seed,  we  had 
been  as  Sodom,  been  made  like  unto  Gromorrah.  The  object  of 
this  quotation  is  the  same  as  that  of  the  preceding,  viz.,  to 
show  that  being  Israelites  was  not  enough  to  secure  either 
exemption  from  divine  judgments  or  the  enjoyment  of  God's 
favour.  The  passage  is  perfectly  in  point,  for  although  the 
prophet  is  speaking  of  the  national  judgments  which  the  people 
had  brought  upon  themselves  by  their  sins,  and  by  which  they 
were  well  nigh  cut  off  entirely,  yet  it  was  necessarily  involved 
in  the  destruction  of  the  people  for  their  idolatry  and  other 
crimes,  that  they  perished  from  the  kingdom  of  God.  Of 
course  the  passage  strictly  proves  what  Paul  designed  to  estab- 
lish, viz.,  that  the  Jews,  as  Jews,  were  as  much  exposed  to  God's 
judgments  as  others,  and  consequently  could  lay  no  special 
claim  to  admission  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 

Paul  here  again  follows  the  Septuagint.  The  only  difference, 
however,  is,  that  the  Greek  version  has  {aizkpiid)  a  seed,  instead 
of  a  remnant,  as  it  is  in  the  Hebrew.  The  sense  is  precisely 
the  same.  The  Hebrew  word  means  that  which  remains;  and 
seed,  as  used  in  this  passage,  means  the  seed  reserved 
for  sowing.  The  figure,  therefore,  is  striking  and  beautiful. 
Ziord  of  Hosts  is  a  frequent  designation  for  the  Supreme  God 
in  the  Old  Testament.     As  the  word  host  is  used  in  reference 

*  See  Koppe  and  Wetsteia  for  a  satisfactory  exhibition  of  the  usus  loquendi 
as  to  this  word. 


ROMANS  IX.  30.      -  517 

to  any  multitude  arranged  in  order,  as  of  men  in  an  army, 
of  angels,  of  the  stars,  or  of  all  the  heavenly  bodies,  including 
the  sun  and  moon,  so  the  expression  Lord  of  hosts,  may  mean 
Lord  of  armies.  Lord  of  angels,  or  Lord  of  heaven,  or  of  the 
universe  as  a  marshalled  host;  see  1  Kings  xxii.  19,  "I  saw 
the  Lord  sitting  on  his  throne,  and  all  the  host  of  heaven 
standing  by  him;"  2  Chron.  xviii.  11,  Ps.  ciii.  21,  Ps.  cxlviii.  2, 
"Praise  ye  him,  all  his  angels,  praise  ye  him,  all  his  hosts." 
In  other  passages,  the  reference  is,  with  equal  distinctness, 
to  the  stars,  Jer.  xxxiii.  22,  Deut.  iv.  19,  and  frequently.  It 
is  most  probable,  therefore,  that  God  is  called  Lord  of  hosts 
in  reference  to  his  Lordship  over  the  whole  heavens,  and  all 
that  they  contain,  Lord  of  hosts  being  equivalent  to  Lord  of 
the  universe. 

Verse  30.  Having  proved  that  God  was  free  to  call  the 
Gentiles  as  well  as  the  Jews  into  his  kingdom,  and  that  it  had 
been  predicted  that  the  great  body  of  the  Jews  were  to  be 
rejected,  he  comes  now  to  state  the  immediate  ground  of  this 
rejection.  What  shall  we  say  then?  This  may  mean  either, 
'  What  is  the  inference  from  the  preceding  discussion  ?'  and  the 
answer  follows,  '  The  conclusion  is,  the  Gentiles  are  called  and 
the  Jews  rejected;'  or,  'What  shall  we  say,  or  object  to  the 
fact  that  the  Gentiles  are  accepted,'  &c.,  &c.  So  Flatt  and 
others.  But  the  former  explanation  is  better  suited  to  the 
context,  especially  to  ver.  32,  and  to  the  apostle's  common  use 
of  this  expression ;  see  ver.  14,  chap.  vii.  7,  viii.  31. 

That  the  Q-entiles  which  followed  not  after  righteousness, 
have  attained,  &c.  The  inference  is,  that  what  to  all  human 
probability  was  the  most  unlikely  to  occur,  has  actually  taken 
place.  The  Gentiles,  sunk  in  carelessness  and  sin,  have  attain- 
ed the  favour  of  God,  while  the  Jews,  to  whom  religion  was  a 
business,  have  utterly  failed.  Why  is  this?  The  reason  is 
given  in  ver.  32 ;  it  was  because  the  Jews  would  not  submit  to 
be  saved  on  the  terms  which  God  proposed,  but  insisted  on 
reaching  heaven  in  their  own  way.  To  follow  after  righteous- 
ness, is  to  press  forward  towards  it  as  towards  the  prize  in  a 
race,  Phil.  iii.  14.  Righteousness,  dcxacoa'jv/],  uniformly  in 
Paul's  writings,  means  either  an  attribute,  as  when  we  ascribe 
righteousness  to  God ;  or,  what  constitutes  righteousness,  i.  e., 


518  ROMANS  IX.  31. 

that  which  satisfies  the  demands  of  justice  or  of  the  law,  as 
when  God  is  said  to  impute  righteousness.  That  is,  he  ascribes 
to  men,  or  sets  to  their  account,  that  which  constitutes  them 
righteous  in  the  sight  of  the  law.  Sometimes,  however,  the 
word  includes  by  implication,  the  consequences  of  possessing 
this  righteousness.  This  is  the  case  in  this  passage.  Those 
who  sought  after  righteousness,  sought  to  be  regarded  and 
treated  as  righteous  in  the  sight  of  God;  that  is,  they  sought 
after  justification.  This,  however,  does  not  imply  that  dcxacoouvr^ 
sicrnifies  justification.  It  means  righteousness,  the  possession  of 
which  secures  justification.  Justification  is  a  declarative  act  of 
God ;  righteousness  is  the  ground  on  which  that  declaration  is 
made. 

Even  the  righteousness  which  is  of  faith,  i.  e.,  even  that 
righteousness  which  is  attained  by  faith.  Throughout  this 
verse,  the  word  righteousness,  as  expressing  the  sum  of  the  di- 
vine requisitions,  that  which  fulfils  the  law  retains  its  meaning. 
'  The  Gentiles  did  not  seek  this  righteousness,  yet  they  attained 
it;  not  that  righteousness  which  is  of  the  law,  but  that  which 
is  through  the  faith  of  Christ,  the  righteousness  of  God  by 
faith,'  Phil.  iii.  9.  They  obtained  that  which  satisfied  the 
demands  of  the  law,  and  was  acceptable  in  the  sight  of  God. 

Verse  31.  What  the  Gentiles  thus  attained,  the  Jews 
failed  to  secure.  The  former  he  had  described  as  "  not  follow- 
ing after  righteousness ;"  the  latter  he  characterizes  as  those 
y^ho  follow  after  the  laiv  of  righteousness.  The  expression  law 
of  righteousness  may  be  variously  explained.  Law  may  be 
taken  in  its  general  sense  of  rule,  as  in  chap.  iii.  27,  and  else- 
where. The  meaning  would  then  be,  'They  followed  after, 
i.  e.,  they  attended  diligently  to,  the  rule  which  they  thought 
would  lead  to  their  attaining  righteousness  or  being  justified, 
but  they  did  not  attain  unto  that  rule  which  actually  leads  to 
such  results.'  Law  of  righteousness  is,  then,  norma  juxta  quam 
Deus  justificat.  This  is  the  interpretation  of  Calvin,  Calovius, 
Bengel,  and  many  others.  Or,  2.  The  word  law  may  be 
redundant,  and  Paul  may  mean  to  say  nothing  more  than  that 
'The  Jews  sought  righteousness  or  justification,  but  did  not 
attain  it.'  This,  no  doubt,  is  the  substance,  though  it  may  not 
be  the  precise  form  of  the  thought.     3.  Law  of  righteousness 


ROMANS  IX.  32,  33.  519 

is  often  understood  here  as  equivalent  to  righteousness  which  is 
of  the  law.  This,  however,  is  rather  forced,  and  not  very  con- 
sistent with  the  latter  clause  of  the  verse,  "  Have  not  attained 
to  the  law  of  righteousness,"  which  can  hardly  be  so  inter- 
preted. Meyer,  Tholuck,  and  others,  take  the  phrase  law  of 
righteousness  in  both  parts  of  the  verse  in  what  they  call  an 
ideal  sense.  The  Jews  strove  to  realize  the  justifying  law, 
i.  e.,  to  attain  that  standard  which  secured  their  justification. 
It  is  more  common  to  take  the  words  as  referring  to  the  Mosaic 
and  moral  law,  as  revealed  in  the  Scriptures,  in  the  foi'mer  part 
of  the  verse,  and  in  the  latter,  the  law  of  faith.  'The  Jews 
made  the  Mosaic  law,  (the  law  of  works,)  the  object  of  their 
zeal,  as  the  means  of  attaining  righteousness,  and  therefore  did 
not  attain  to  that  law  (the  law  of  faith,  Rom.  iii.  27,)  which 
really  secures  righteousness.'  They  were  zealous  to  attain 
righteousness,  but  failed.  Why?  The  answer  is  given  in  the 
next  verse. 

Verse  32.  Because  they  sought  it  not  hy  faith,  hut,  as  it 
were,  hy  the  works  of  the  law.  In  other  words,  they  would  not 
submit  to  the  method  of  justification  proposed  by  God,  which 
was  alone  suitable  for  sinners,  and  persisted  in  trusting  to  their 
own  imperfect  works.  The  reason  why  one  man  believes  and 
is  saved,  rather  than  another,  is  to  be  sought  in  the  sovereign 
grace  of  God,  according  to  Paul's  doctrine  in  the  preceding 
part  of  this  chapter,  and  chap.  viii.  28,  2  Tim.  i.  9,  &c.;  but 
the  ground  of  the  rejection  and  condemnation  of  men  is  always 
in  themselves.  The  vessels  of  wrath  Avhich  are  destroyed,  are 
destroyed  on  account  of  their  sins.  No  man,  therefore,  can 
throw  the  blame  of  his  perdition  on  any  other  than  himself. 
This  verse,  consequently,  is  very  far  from  being  inconsistent 
with  the  doctrine  of  the  divine  sovereignty  as  taught  above. 
The  force  of  the  word  rendered  as  it  were,  may  be  explained 
by  paraphrasing  the  clause  thus,  '  as  though  they  supposed  it 
could  be  obtained  by  the  works  of  the  law.'  See  2  Cor.  iii.  5, 
ii.  7,  'They  sought  it  as  [heing)  of  the  works  of  the  law.'  For 
they  stumbled  at  that  stumhling-stone.  That  is,  they  did  as  it 
had  been  predicted  they  would  do,  they  took  oflFence  at  the 
Messiah  and  at  the  plan  of  salvation  which  he  came  to  reveal. 

Verse    33.     What   it   was   they   stumbled   at,   the  apostle 


620  ROMANS  IX.  33. 

declares  in  this  verse,  and  shows  that  the  rejection  of  the 
Messiah  by  the  Jews  was  predicted  in  the  Old  Testament. 
As  it  is  written,  Behold,  I  lay  in  Zion  a  stumbling-stone,  and  a 
rock  of  offence;  and  whosoever  believeth  on  him  shall  not  be 
ashamed.  This  passage  is  apparently  made  up  of  two,  one 
occurring  in  Isa.  xxviii.  16,  the  other  in  Isa.  viii.  14.  In  both 
of  these  passages  mention  is  made  of  a  stone,  but  the  predicates 
of  this  stone,  as  given  in  the  latter  passage,  are  transferred  to 
the  other,  and  those  there  mentioned  omitted.  This  method  of 
quoting  Scripture  is  common  among  all  writers,  especially  where 
the  several  passages  quoted  and  merged  into  each  other,  refer 
to  the  same  subject.  It  is  obvious  that  the  writers  of  the  New 
Testament  are  very  free  in  their  mode  of  quoting  from  the  Old, 
giving  the  sense,  as  they,  being  inspired  by  the  same  Spirit, 
could  do  authoritatively,  without  binding  themselves  strictly  to 
the  words.  The  former  of  the  two  passages  here  referred  to 
stands  thus  in  our  version,  "Behold,  I  lay  in  Zion  for  a  foun- 
dation a  stone,  a  tried  stone,  a  precious  corner  stone,  a  sure 
foundation;  he  that  believeth  shall  not  make  haste,"  which  is 
according  to  the  Hebrew.  The  other  passage,  Isa.  viii.  14,  is, 
"  And  he  shall  be  for  a  sanctuary ;  but  for  a  stone  of  stumbling 
and  a  rock  of  offence  to  both  houses  of  Israel." 

Isaiah  xxviii.  is  a  prophecy  against  those  who  had  various 
false  grounds  of  confidence,  and  who  desired  a  league  with 
Egypt  as  a  defence  against  the  attacks  of  the  Assyrians.  God 
says,  he  has  laid  a  much  more  secure  foundation  for  his  church 
than  any  such  confederacy,  even  a  precious,  tried  corner  stone ; 
those  who  confided  to  it  should  never  be  confounded.  The  pro- 
phets, constantly  filled  with  the  expectation  of  the  Messiah, 
and,  in  general,  ignorant  of  the  time  of  his  advent,  were  accus- 
tomed, on  every  threatened  danger,  to  comfort  the  people  by 
the  assurance  that  the  efforts  of  their  enemies  could  not  pre- 
vail, because  the  Messiah  was  to  come.  Until  his  advent,  they 
could  not,  as  a  people,  be  destroyed,  and  when  he  came,  there 
should  be  a  glorious  restoration  of  all  things;  see  Isa.  vii. 
14 — 16,  and  elsewhere.  There  is,  therefore,  no  force  in  the 
objection,  that  the  advent  of  Christ  was  an  event  too  remote  to 
be  available  to  the  consolation  of  the  people,  when  threatened 
with  the  immediate  invasion  of  their  enemies.     This  passage 


ROMANS  IX.  33.  521 

is  properly  quoted  by  the  apostle,  because  it .  was  intended 
originally  to  apply  to  Christ.  The  sacred  writers  of  the 
New  Testament  so  understood  and  explain  it;  see  1  Peter 
ii.  6,  Matt.  xxi.  42,  Acts  iv.  11 ;  compare  also  Ps.  cxviii.  22, 
1  Cor.  iii.  11,  Eph.  ii.  20,  and  other  passages,  in  which  Christ 
is  spoken  of  as  the  foundation  or  corner  stone  of  his  church. 
The  same  interpretation  of  the  passage  was  given  by  the 
ancient  Jews  * 

The  other  passage,  Isa.  viii.  14,  is  of  much  the  same  charac- 
ter. God  exhorts  the  people  not  to  be  afraid  of  the  combina- 
tion between  Syria  and  Ephraim.  The  Lord  of  hosts  was  to 
be  feared  and  trusted,  he  would  be  a  refuge  to  those  who  con- 
fided in  him,  but  a  stone  of  stumbling  and  rock  of  offence  to  all 
others.  This  passage,  too,  as  appears  from  a  comparison  of 
the  one  previously  cited  with  Ps.  cxviii.  22,  and  the  quotation 
and  application  of  them  by  the  New  Testament  writers,  refers 
to  Christ.  What  is  said  in  the  Old  Testament  of  Jehovah,  the 
inspired  penmen  of  the  New  do  not  hesitate  to  refer  to  the 
Saviour;  compare  John  xii.  41,  Isa.  vi.  1,  Heb.  i.  10,  11,  Ps. 
cii.  25,  1  Cor.  x.  9,  Exod.  xvii.  2,  7.  When  God,  therefore, 
declared  that  he  should  be  a  sanctuary  to  one  class  of  the  peo- 
ple, and  a  rock  of  oiFence  to  another,  he  meant  that  he,  in  the 
person  of  his  Son,  as  the  Immanuel,  would  thus  be  confided  in 
by  some,  but  rejected  and  despised  by  others.  The  whole 
spirit,  opinions,  and  expectations  of  the  Jews  were  adverse  to 
the  person,  character,  and  doctrines  of  the  Redeemer.  He 
was,  therefore,  to  them  a  stumbling-block,  as  he  was  to  others 
foolishness.  They  could  not  recognise  him  as  their  fondly 
anticipated  Messiah,  nor  consent  to  enter  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  on  the  terms  which  he  prescribed.  In  them,  therefore, 
were  fulfilled  the  ancient  prophecies,  which  spoke  of  their  rejec- 
tion of  Christ,  and  consequent  excision  from  the  people  of  God. 

DOCTRINE. 

1.  Exclusion  from  the' pale  of  any  visible  church  does  not  of 
itself  imply  that  men  are  without  the  reach  of  divine  mercy, 
vs.  25,  26. 

*  Martini  Pugio  Fidei,  Lib.  II.  cap.  5,  p.  842,  and  the  passages  quoted  by 
Rosenmtiller  and  Gesenius  on  Isa.  xxviii.  16. 


522  ROMANS  IX.  25—33. 

2.  As  the  world  has  hitherto  existed,  only  a  small  portion  of 
the  nominal  members  of  the  Church,  or  of  the  professors  of  the 
true  religion,  has  been  the  real  people  of  God,  vs.  27,  28,  29, 

3.  Error  is  often  a  greater  obstacle  to  the  salvation  of  men 
than  carelessness  or  vice.  Christ  said  that  publicans  and  har- 
lots would  enter  the  kingdom  of  God  before  the  Pharisees.  In 
like  manner  the  thoughtless  and  sensual  Gentiles  were  more 
susceptible  of  impression  from  the  gospel,  and  were  more  fre- 
quently converted  to  Christ,  than  the  Jews,  who  were  wedded 
to  erroneous  views  of  the  plan  of  salvation,  vs.  30,  31. 

4.  Agreeably  to  the  declarations  of  the  previous  portion  of 
this  chapter,  and  the  uniform  tenor  of  Scripture,  the  ground  of 
the  distinction  between  the  saved  and  the  lost,  is  to  be  found 
not  in  men,  but  in  God.  He  has  mercy  on  whom  he  will  have 
mercy.  But  the  ground  of  the  condemnation  of  men  is  always 
in  themselves.  That  God  gave  his  saving  grace  to  more  Gen- 
tiles than  Jews,  in  the  early  ages  of  the  Church,  must  be  refer- 
red to  his  sovereign  pleasure ;  but  that  the  Jews  were  cut  off 
and  perished,  is  to  be  referred  to  their  own  unbelief.  In  like 
manner,  every  sinner  must  look  into  his  own  heart  and  conduct 
for  the  ground  of  his  condemnation,  and  never  to  any  secret 
purpose  of  God,  ver.  32. 

5.  Christ  crucified  has  ever  been  either  foolishness  or  an 
offence  to  unrenewed  men.  Hence,  right  views  of  the  Saviour's 
character,  and  cordial  approbation  of  the  plan  of  salvation 
through  him,  are  characteristic  of  those  "who  are  called;" 
i.  e.,  they  are  evidences  of  a  renewed  hearty  ver.  33. 

REMARKS. 

1.  The  consideration  that  God  has  extended  to  us,  who  were 
not  his  people,  all  the  privileges  and  blessings  of  his  children, 
should  be  a  constant  subject  of  gratitude,  vs.  25,  26. 

2.  If  only  a  remnant  of  the  Jewish  Church,  God's  own  peo- 
ple, were  saved,  how  careful  and  solicitous  should  all  professors 
of  religion  be,  that  their  faith  and  hope  be  well  founded,  vs. 
27—29. 

3.  Let  no  man  think  error  in  doctrine  a  slight  practical  evil. 
No  road  to  perdition  has  ever  been  more  thronged  than  that  of 
false  doctrine.  Error  is  a  shield  over  the  conscience,  and  a 
bandage  over  the  eyes,  vs.  30,  31. 


ROMANS  X.  523 

4.  No  form  of  error  is  more  destructive  than  that  which  leads 
to  self-dependence ;  either  reliance  on  our  own  powers,  or  on  our 
own  merit,  ver.  32. 

5.  To  criminate  God,  and  excuse  ourselves,  is  always  an 
evidence  of  ignorance  and  depravity,  ver.  32.  • 

6.  Christ  declared  those  blessed  who  were  not  offended  at 
him.  If  our  hearts  are  right  in  the  sight  of  God,  Jesus  Christ 
is  to  us  at  once  the  object  of  supreme  aflfection,  and  the  sole 
ground  of  confidence,  ver.  33. 

7.  The  gospel  produced  at  first  the  same  effects  as  those  we 
now  witness.  It  had  the  same  obstacles  to  surmount;  and  it 
was  received  or  rejected  by  the  same  classes  of  men  then  as 
now.  Its  history,  therefore,  is  replete  with  practical  instruc- 
tion. 


»»  » 


CHAPTER   X. 

CONTENTS. 

The  object  of  this  chapter,  as  of  the  preceding  and  of  the 
one  which  follows,  is  to  set  forth  the  truth  in  reference  to  the 
rejection  of  the  Jews  as  the  peculiar  people  of  God,  and  the 
extension  to  all  nations  of  the  offers  of  salvation.  The  first 
verses  are  again,  as  those  at  the  beginning  of  chap,  ix.,  intro- 
ductory and  conciliatory,  setting  forth  the  ground  of  the  rejec- 
tion of  the  Jews,  vs.  1 — 4.  The  next  section  contains  an 
exhibition  of  the  terms  of  salvation,  designed  to  show  that  they 
were  as  accessible  to  the  Gentiles  as  the  Jews,  vs.  5 — 10.  The 
plan  of  salvation  being  adapted  to  all,  and  God  being  the  God 
of  all,  the  gospel  should  be  preached  to  all,  vs.  11 — 17.  The 
truth  here  taught  (the  calling  of  the  Gentiles,  &c.,)  was  pre- 
dicted clearly  in  the  Old  Testament,  vs.  18 — 21. 

ROMANS  X.  1—10. 

ANALYSIS. 
"With  his  usual  tenderness,  the  apostle  assures  his  brethren 
of  his  solicitude  for  their  welfare,  and  of  his  proper  appreciation 


524  ^  ROMANS  X.  1,  2. 

of  their  character,  vs.  1,  2.  The  difficulty  was,  that  they  would 
not  submit  to  the  plan  of  salvation  proposed  in  the  gospel,  and, 
therefore,  they  rejected  the  Saviour.  This  was  the  true  ground 
of  their  excision  from  the  people  of  God,  vs.  3,  4.  The  method 
(jf  justification,  on  which  the  Jews  insisted,  was  legal,  and  from 
its  nature  must  be  confined  to  themselves,  or  to  those  who 
would  consent  to  become  Jews.  Its  terms,  when  properly 
understood,  were  perfectly  impracticable,  ver.  5.  But  the 
gospel  method  of  salvation  prescribes  no  such  severe  terms,  it 
simply  requires  cordial  faith  and  open  profession,  vs.  6 — 10. 
This,  he  shows,  in  the  next  verses,  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, and  from  it  he  infers  the  applicability  of  this  plan  to  all 
men,  Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews. 

COMMENTARY. 

Verse  1.  Brethren,  my  heart's  desire  and  prayer  to  (xod  for 
Israel  is,  that  they  might  be  saved."^  As  the  truth  which  Paul 
was  to  reiterate  in  the  ears  of  the  Jew  was,  of  all  others,  to 
them  the  most  offensive,  he  endea;vours  to  allay  their  enmity, 
first,  by  assuring  them  of  his  affection,  and  secondly,  by  avoid- 
ing all  exaggeration  in  the  statement  of  their  case.  The  word 
eudoxla  means  either  good  pleasure,  sovereign  j^wr^ose.  Matt.  xi. 
26,  Luke  ii.  14,  2  Thess.  i.  11,  Eph.  i.  5,  9,  or  benevolence, 
kind  feeling,  or  desire,  as  in  Phil.  i.  15.  The  latter  sense  best 
suits  this  passage.  Paul  meant  to  assure  his  brethren  accord- 
ing to  the  flesh,  that  all  his  feelings  towards  them  were  kind, 
and  that  he  earnestly  desired  their  salvation.  He  had  no 
pleasure  in  contemplating  the  evils  which  impended  over  them, 
his  earnest  desire  and  prayer  was  (s^c  acozrjpiav)  that  they  might 
he  saved;  literally  to  salvation,  as  expressing  the  end  or  object 
towards  which  his  wishes  and  prayers  tend;  see  chap.  vi.  22, 
Gal.  iii.  17,  and  frequent  examples  elsewhere  of  this  use  of  the 
preposition  d^. 

Verse  2.  For  I  hear  them  record  that  they  have  a  zeal  of 
Cfod.     So  far  from  desiring  to  exaggerate  the  evil  of  their  con- 

*  Hinc  videmus,  quanta  sollicitudine  sanctus  vir  offensionibus  obviarit. 
Adhuc  enim,  ut  temperet  quicquid  erat  accerbitatis  in  exponenda  Judaeorum 
rejectione,  suam,  ut  prius,  erga  eos  benevolentiam  testatur,  et  earn  ab  eflfectu 
comprobat,  quod  sibi  eorum  salus  curae  esset  coram  Domino. — Calvin. 


ROMANS  X.  3.  525 

• 

duct,  the  apostle,  as  was  his  uniform  manner,  endeavoured  to 
bring  every  thing  commendable  and  exculpatory  fully  into  view. 
The  word  /or,  has  here  its  appropriate  force,  as  it  introduces 
the  ground  or  reason  of  the  preceding  declaration.  '  I  desire 
their  salvation,  for  they  themselves  are  far  from  being  uncon- 
cerned as  to  divine  things.'  Zeal  of  Cfod  may  mean  very  great^ 
zeal,  as  cedars  of  God  mean  great  cedars,  according  to  a  com- 
mon Hebrew  idiom;  or  zeal  of  which  God  is  the  object;  the 
latter  explanation  is  to  be  preferred.  John  ii.  17,  "  The  zeal 
of  thy  house  hath  eaten  me  up."  Acts  xxi.  22,  "Zealous  of 
the  law."  Acts  xxii.  3,  "Zealous  of  God."  Gal.  i.  14,  &c., 
&c.  The  Jews  had  great  zeal  about  God,  but  it  was  wrong  as 
to  its  object,  and  of  consequence  wrong  in  its  moral  qualities. 
Zeal,  when  rightly  directed,  however  ardent,  is  humble  and 
amiable.  When  its  object  is  evil,  it  is  proud,  censorious,  and 
cruel.  Hence,  the  importance  of  its  being  properly  guided, 
not  merely  to  prevent  the  waste  of  feeling  and  effort,  but  prin- 
cipally to  prevent  its  evil  effects  on  ourselves  and  others.  But 
not  according  to  knowledge.  Commentators  notice  that  Paul 
uses  the  word  iTicjvcoac^.  The  Jews  had  yvaJacc;  (knowledge), 
what  they  lacked  was  kmyvcoai(;,  correct  knowledge  and  appre- 
ciation. Their  knowledge  was  neither  enlightened  nor  wise; 
neither  right  as  to  its  objects,  nor  correct  in  its  character.  The 
former  idea  is  here  principally  intended.  The  Jews  were  zeal- 
ous about  their  law,  the  traditions  of  their  fathers,  and  the 
establishment  of  their  own  merit.  How  naturally  would  a  zeal 
for  such  objects  make  men  place  religion  in  the  observance  of 
external  rites ;  and  be  connected  with  pride,  censoriousness,  and 
a  persecuting  spirit.  In  so  far,  however,  as  this  zeal  was  a  zeal 
about  God,  it  was  preferable  to  indifference,  and  is,  therefore, 
mentioned  by  the  apostle  with  qualified  commendation. 

Verse  3.  For  they  being  ignorant  of  God's  righteousness^ 
and  going  about  to  establish  their  own  righteousness,  have  not, 
&c.  The  grand  mistake  of  the  Jews  was  about  the  method 
of  justification.  Ignorance  on  this  point  implied  ignorance  of 
the  character  of  God,  of  the  requirements  of  the  law,  and  of 
themselves.  It  was,  therefore,  and  is,  and  must  ever  continue 
to  be  a  vital  point.  Those  who  err  essentially  here,  err  fatally ; 
and  those  who  are  right  here,  cannot  be  wrong  as  to  other 


526  ROMANS  X.  3. 

necessary  truths.  Their  own  righteousness,  ttjv  idiav  dixaio- 
auvYjv,  which  Theophylact  correctly  interprets,  ttjv  i^  ipycDU  idiiov 
xal  7:6vu)v  xaTopd-oo[X£V7jV.  The  phrase  righteousness  of  Q-od, 
admits  here,  as  in  other  parts  of  the  epistle,  of  various  inter- 
pretations. 1.  It  may  mean  the  divine  holiness  or  general 
^moral  perfection  of  God.  In  this  way  the  passage  would  mean, 
'Being  ignorant  of  the  perfection  or  holiness  of  God,  and,  of 
course,  of  the  extent  of  his  demands,  and  going  about  to  estab- 
lish their  own  excellence,  &c.'  This  gives  a  good  sense,  but  it 
is  not  consistent  with  the  use  of  the  expression  righteousness  of 
God,  in  other  similar  passages,  as  chap.  i.  17,  iii.  21,  &c.  And, 
secondly,  it  requires  the  phrase  to  be  taken  in  two  different 
senses  in  the  same  verse;  for  the  last  clause,  'Have  not  sub- 
mitted themselves  to  the  righteousness  of  God,'  cannot  mean, 
'They  have  not  submitted  to  the  divine  holiness.'  2.  The  term 
may  mean  that  righteousness  of  which  Grod  is  the  author,  that 
which  he  approves  and  accepts.  This  interpretation  is,  in  this 
case,  peculiarly  appropriate,  from  the  opposition  of  the  two 
expressions,  righteousness  of  Grod  and  their  own  righteousness. 
'  Being  ignorant  of  that  righteousness  which  God  has  provided, 
and  which  he  bestows,  and  endeavouring  to  establish  their  own, 
they  refused  to  accept  of  his.'  The  sense  here  is  perfectly 
good,  and  the  interpretation  may  be  carried  through  the  verse, 
being  applicable  to  the  last  clause  as  well  as  to  the  others.  A 
comparison  of  this  passage  with  Phil.  iii.  9,  "Not  having  my 
own  righteousness,  but  the  righteousness  which  is  of  God,"  is 
also  in  favour  of  this  interpretation.  For  there  the  phrase 
the  righteousness  which  is  of  Grod,  can  only  mean  that  which  he 
gives,  and  with  this  phrase  the  expression  the  righteousness 
of  God,  in  this  verse,  seems  to  be  synonymous.*  3.  Thirdly, 
Some  interpreters  take  righteousness  in  the  sense  of  justifica- 
tion, "justification  of  God"  being  taken  as  equivalent  to 
'  God's  method  of  justification.*  'Being  ignorant  of  God's 
method    of  justification,   and   going  about   to    establish  their 

*  Judaei  habuere  et  habent  zelum  sine  scientia,  nos  contra,  proh  dolor, 
scientiam  sine  zelo. — Flacius,  quoted  by  Bengel.  Melius  est  vel  claudicare  in 
via,  quam  extra  viam  strenue  currere,  ut  ait  Augustinus.  Si  religiosi  esse 
volumus,  meminerimus  verum  esse,  quod  Lactantius  docet,  earn  demum  veram 
esse  religionem  quae  conjuncta  est  cum  Dei  verbo. — Calvin. 


ROMANS  X.  4.  62T 

own,  they  have  not  submitted  themselves  to  the  method  which 
he  has  proposed.'  The  cause  of  the  rejection  of  the  Jews  was 
their  rejection  of  the  method  of  salvation  through  a  crucified 
Redeemer,  and  their  persisting  in  confiding  in  their  own  merits 
and  advantages  as  the  ground  of  their  acceptance  with  God. 
Although  this  is  the  meaning  of  the  passage,  it  is  not  the  sense 
of  the  words.  Righteousness  does  not  signify  justification.  It 
is  that  on  which  the  sentence  of  justification  is  founded.  Those 
who  have  righteousness,  either  personal  and  inherent,  or 
imputed,  are  justified.  As  we  have  no  righteousness  of  our 
own,  nothing  that  we  have  done  or  experienced,  nothing  per- 
sonal or  subjective,  that  can  answer  the  demands  of  the  law,  we 
can  be  justified  only  through  the  righteousness  of  God,  imputed 
to  us  and  received  by  faith. 

Verse  4.  For  Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law  for  righteousness 
to  every  one  that  helieveth.  The  precise  connection  of  this  verse 
with  the  preceding,  depends  on  the  view  taken  of  its  meaning. 
The  general  import  of  the  passage  is  sufiiciently  obvious,  but  its 
exact  sense  is  not  so  easy  to  determine,  on  account  of  the  am- 
biguity of  the  word  (ri/loc)  translated  end.  The  word  may 
signify,  1.  The  object  to  which  any  thing  leads.  Christ  is,  in 
this  sense,  the  end  of  the  law,  inasmuch  as  the  law  was  a 
schoolmaster  to  lead  us  to  him,  Gal.  iii.  24 ;  and  as  all  its  types 
and  prophecies  pointed  to  him,  "  They  were  a  shadow  of  things 
to  come,  but  the  body  is  of  Christ,"  Col.  ii.  17,  Heb.  ix.  9. 
The  meaning  and  connection  of  the  passage  would  then  be, 
'The  Jews  erred  in  seeking  justification  from  the  law, /or  the 
law  was  designed,  not  to  afi'ord  justification,  but  to  lead  them  to 
Christ,  in  order  that  they  might  be  justified.'  To  Christ  all 
its  portions  tended,  he  was  the  object  of  its  types  and  the 
subject  of  its  predictions,  and  its  precepts  and  penalty  urge  the 
soul  to  him  as  the  only  refuge.  So  Calvin,  Bengel,  and  the 
majority  of  commentators.* 

*  Indicat  legis  praeposterum  interpretem  esse,  qui  per  ejus  opera  justifi- 
cari  quaerit,  quoniam  in  hoc  lex  data  est,  quo  uos  ad  aliam  justitiam 
manu  duceret.  Imo  quicquid  doceat  lex,  quicquid  praecipiat,  quicquid  pro- 
inittat  semper  Christum  habet  pro  scopo ;  ergo  in  ipsum  dirigendae  sunt  omnes 
partes. — Calvin. 

Lex  hominera  urget,  donee  is  ad  Christum  confugit.  Tum  ipsa  dicit:  asylum 
es  nactus,  desino  te  persequi,  sapis,  salvus  es. — Bengel. 


528  ROMANS  X.  4. 

2.  The  word  may  be  taken  in  the  sense  of  completion  or 
fulfilment.  Then  Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law,  because  he 
fuli&ls  all  its  requisitions,  all  its  types  and  ceremonies,  and 
satisfies  its  preceptive  and  penal  demands.  See  Matt.  v.  17, 
"  Think  not  I  am  come  to  destroy  the  law  or  the  prophets,  I 
am  not  come  to  destroy,  but  to  fulfil;"  and  Rom.  viii.  4.  The 
philological  ground  for  this  interpretation  is  slight.  1.  Tim. 
i.  5,  is  compared  with  Rom.  xiii.  10,  in  order  to  prove  that  the 
word  [tikoz)  here  translated  end,  is  equivalent  to  the  word 
{nk/jpiopLo.)  which  is  there  (Rom.  xiii.  10)  rendered  fulfilling. 
The  sense,  according  to  this  interpretation,  is  scriptural,  but  is 
not  consistent  with  the  meaning  of  the  word. 

3.  We  may  take  the  word  in  its  more  ordinary  sense  of  end 
or  termination,  and  understand  it  raetonymically  for  he  who 
terminates  or  puts  an  end  to.  The  meaning  and  connection 
would  then  be,  '  The  Jews  mistake  the  true  method  of  justifica- 
tion, because  they  seek  it  from  the  law,  whereas  Christ,  has 
abolished  the  law,  in  order  that  all  who  believe  may  be  justified.' 
Compare  Eph.  ii.  15,  "Having  abolished  in  his  flesh  the 
enmity,  even  the  law  of  commandments;"  Col.  ii.  4,  "Blotting 
out  the  handAvriting  of  ordinances  that  was  against  us,  &c," 
Gal.  iii.  10,  12,  Rom.  vi.  14,  vii.  4,  6,  and  the  general  drift  of 
the  former  part  of  the  epistle.  In  sense,  this  interpretation 
amounts  the  same  with  the  preceding,  though  it  difi'ers  from  it 
in  form.  Christ  has  abolished  the  law,  not  by  destroying,  but 
by  fulfilling  it.  He  has  abolished  the  law  as  a  rule  of  justifica- 
tion, or  covenant  of  works,  and  the  whole  Mosaic  economy 
having  met  its  completion  in  him,  has  by  him  been  brought  to 
an  end.  In  Luke  xvi.  16,  it  is  said,  "  The  law  and  the  prophets 
were  until  John;"  then,  in  one  sense,  they  ceased,  or  came  to 
an  end.  When  Christ  came,  the  old  legal  system  was  abolished, 
and  a  new  era  commenced.  The  same  idea  is  presented  in 
Gal.  iii.  23,  "Before  faith  came  we  were  kept  under  the  law," 
but  when  Christ  appeared,  declaring,  "Believe  and  thou  shalt  be 
saved,"  we  were  no  longer  und  erthat  bondage.  The  doctrine  is 
clearly  taught  in  Scripture,  that  those  who  are  out  of  Christ 
are  under  the  law,  subject  to  its  demands  and  exposed  to  its 
penalty.  His  coming  and  work  have  put  an  end  to  its  authority, 
we  are  no  longer  under  the  law,  but  under  grace,  Rom.  vi.  14; 


ROMANS  X.  5.  529 

we  are  no  longer  under  the  system  wliich  says,  Do  this,  and 
live;  but  under  that  which  says,  Believe,  and  thou  shalt  be 
saved.  This  abrogation  of  the  law,  however,  is  not  by  setting 
it  aside,  but  by  fulfilling  its  demands.  It  is  because  Christ  is- 
the  fulfiller  of  the  law,  that  he  is  the  end  of  it.  It  is  the  latter 
truth  which  the  apostle  here  asserts.  The  word  Imv  is  obvi- 
ously here  used  in  its  prevalent  sense  throughout  this  epistle, 
for  the  whole  rule  of  duty  prescribed  to  man,  including  for  the 
Jews  the  whole  of  the  Mosaic  institutions.  That  law  is 
intended  which  has  been  fulfilled,  satisfied,  or  abrogated  by 
Jesus  Christ.  For  righteousness  to  every  one  that  helieveth. 
The  general  meaning  of  this  clause,  in  this  connection,  is,  '  So 
that,  or,  in  order  that,  every  believer  may  be  justified;'  Christ 
has  abolished  the  law,  Iva  dcxaxcod^fj  Trdc  <^  Ticareocov  kT:  auzw,  in 
in  order  that  every  believer  may  attain  righteousness,  Avhich  is 
unattainable  by  the  law.  The  law  is  abolished  by  Christ,  not 
as  a  rule  of  life,  but  as  a  covenant  prescribing  the  condition 
of  life.  The  way  in  which  this  idea  is  arrived  at,  however,  may 
be  variously  explained.  1.  The  preposition  {ec<;)  rendered  /or, 
may  be  rendered  as  to,  as  it  relates  to.  '  Christ  is  the  end  of 
the  law,  as  it  relates  to  righteousness.'  2.  It  may  be  under- 
stood of  the  effect  or  result,  and  be  resolved  into  the  verbal 
construction  with  that,  or  so  that;  'Christ  is  the  end,  &c.,  that 
righteousness  is  to  every  believer ;  or  so  that  every  believer  is 
justified.'  3.  It  may  point  out  the  end  or  object.  '  Christ 
has  abolished  the  law  in  order  that  everyone  that  believes,  &c.' 
The  last  is  the  correct  explanation.  The  Jews,  then,  did  not 
submit  to  the  righteousness  of  God,  that  is,  to  the  righteous- 
ness which  he  had  provided,  for  they  did  not  submit  to  Christ, 
who  is  the  end  of  the  law.  He  has  abolished  the  law,  in  order 
that  every  one  that  believes  may  be  justified. 

Verse  5.  For  Moses  descriheth  the  righteousness  which  is  of 
the  law.  That  is,  concerning  the  righteousness  which  is  of 
the  law,  Moses  thus  writes.  In  the  last  clause  of  the  pre- 
ceding verse  it  was  clearly  intimated  that  faith  was  the  con- 
dition of  salvation  under  the  gospel.  '  To  every  one,  without 
distinction,  that  helieveth,  is  justification  secured.'  On  this 
the  apostle  connects  his  description  and  contrast  of  the  two 
methods  of  justification,  the  one  by  works  and  the  other  by 
34 


530  ROMANS  X.  6,  7. 

faith,  with  the  design  of  showing  that  the  former  is  in  its 
nature  impracticable,  while  the  other  is  reasonable  and  easy, 
and  adapted  to  all  classes  of  men,  Jews  and  Gentiles,  and 
should  therefore  be  offered  to  all. 

The  righteousness  which  is  of  the  laiv.  The  word  righteous- 
ness has  here  its  common  and  proper  meaning.  It  is  that 
which  constitutes  a  man  righteous,  Avhich  meets  the  demands 
of  the  law,  or  satisfies  the  claims  of  justice..  The  man  who  is 
righteous,  or  who  possesses  righteousness,  cannot  be  condemned. 
The  apostle  in  his  whole  argument  proceeds  on  the  assumption 
that  God  is  just ;  that  he  does  and  must  demand  righteousness 
in  those  whom  he  justifies.  There  are  but  two  possible  ways  in 
which  this  righteousness  can  be  obtained — by  works,  or  by 
faith.  We  must  either  have  a  righteousness  of  our  own,  or 
receive  and  trust  in  a  righteousness  which  is  not  our  own,  but 
which  has  been  wrought  out  for  us,  and  presented  to  us,  as  the 
ground  of  our  acceptance  with  God.  The  quotation  is  from 
Lev.  xviii.  5,  "The  man  that  doeth  those  things  shall  live  by 
them."  Those  things  are  the  things  prescribed  in  the  law.  It 
is  the  clear  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures,  that  obedience  to  the 
law,  to  secure  justification,  must  be  perfect.  For  it  is  said, 
*'  Cursed  is  every  one  who  continueth  not  in  all  things  written 
in  the  book  of  the  law  to  do  them;"  and,  he  that  offendeth  in 
one  point,  is  guilty  of  all.  It  is  not  necessary  that  a  man  who 
commits  murder  should  also  steal,  in  order  to  bring  him  under 
the  penalty  of  the  law.  The  legal  system,  then,  which 
demanded  obedience,  required  perfect  obedience.  Those,  and 
those  only,  who  were  thus  free  from  sin,  should  Uve,  i.  e.,  shall 
enjoy  that  life  which  belongs  to  him  as  a  rational  and  immortal 
being.  It  is  a  life  which  includes  the  whole  man,  soul  and 
body,  and  the  whole  course  of  his  existence,  in  this  world  and 
in  that  which  is  to  come.  Z^aerat  ex  mente  Judaeorum'inter- 
pretatur  de  vita  aeterna,  ut  Targum^  Levit.  xviii.  4.  The 
Jewish  writers  also  well  remark,  that  Moses  says,  Qui  fecerit 
ea  homo;  non  dicitur,  Sacerdos,  Levita,  Israelita,  sed  homo;  ut 
discas,  etiam  gentilem,  si  proselytus  fiat,  et  det  legi  operam, 
intelligi.     See  Wetstein. 

Verses  6,  7.  But  the  righteousness  which  is  of  faith  speak- 
eth  on  this  ivise.   Say  not,  &c.     Moses  says  one   thing;   the 


ROMANS  X.  6,  7.  531 

righteousness  of  faith  says  another  thing,  The  same  kind  of 
personification  occurs  in  Gal.  iii.  23,  25.  The  phrase  righteous- 
ness of  faith,  or  as  it  is  here,  which  is  of  faith,  admits  of  differ- 
ent interpretations,  if  we  limit  ourselves  to  the  mere  force  of 
the  words.  Righteousness  of  faith,  may  mean  that  righteous- 
ness which  consists  in  faith ;  or,  which  flows  from  faith,  (i.  e., 
that  inward  excellence  which  faith  produces) ;  or,  the  righteous- 
ness which  is  received  by  faith.  This  last  is  the  only  interpre- 
tation consistent  with  the  context,  or  with  the  analogy  of 
Scripture.  The  righteousness  Avhich  consists  in  faith,  or  which 
flows  from  faith,  is  our  own  righteousness.  It  is  as  true  and 
properly  our  own  as  any  righteousness  of  works  on  which 
Pharisees  relied.  Besides,  it  is  the  whole  doctrine  of  the 
apostle  and  of  the  gospel,  that  it  is  Christ's  righteousness,  his 
obedience,  blood,  or  death,  which  is  the  ground  of  our  accept- 
ance with  God,  and  which  it  receives  and  rests  upon. 

It  is  clearly  implied  in  that  verse  that  the  attainment  of 
justification,  by  a  method  which  prescribed  perfect  obedience, 
is  for  sinful  men  impossible.  It  is  the  object  of  this  and  the 
succeeding  verses,  to  declare  that  the  gospel  requires  no  such 
impossibilities ;  it  neither  requires  us  to  scale  the  heavens,  nor 
to  fathom  the  great  abyss ;  it  demands  only  cordial  faith  and 
open  profession.  In  expressing  these  ideas  the  apostle  skilfully 
avails  himself  of  the  language  of  Moses,  Deut.  xxx.  10 — 14.  It 
is  clear  that  the  expressions  used  by  the  ancient  lawgiver  were 
a  familiar  mode  of  saying  that  a  thing  could  not  be  done.  The 
passage  referred  to  is  the  following,  "For  this  command  which 
I  command  thee  this  day,  it  is  not  hidden  from  thee,  neither  is 
it  far  ofi".  It  is  not  in  heaven,  that  thou  shouldest  say.  Who 
shall  go  up.  for  us  to  heaven,  and  bring  it  unto  us,  that  we  may 
hear  it,  and  do  it?  Neither  is  it  beyond  the  sea,  that  thou 
shouldest  say,  Who  shall  go  over  the  sea  for  us,  and  bring  it 
unto  us,  that  we  may  hear  it,  and  do  it  ?  But  the  word  is  very 
nigh  unto  thee,  in  thy  mouth,  and  in  thy  heart,  that  thou  may- 
est  do  it."  The  obvious  import  of  this  passage  is,  that  the 
knowledge  of  the  will  of  God  had  been  made  perfectly  accessi- 
ble, no  one  was  required  to  do  what  was  impossible ;  neither  to 
ascend  to  heaven,  nor  to  pass  the  boundless  sea,  in  order  to 
attain  it ;  it  was  neither  hidden,  nor  afar  off,  but  obvious  and 


532  ROMANS  X.  6,  7. 

at  hand.  "Without  directly  citing  this  passage,  Paul  uses  nearly 
the  same  language  to  express  the  same  idea.  The  expressions 
here  used  seem  to  have  become  proverbial  among  the  Jews. 
To  be  "high,"  or  "afar  off,"  was  to  be  unattainable;  Ps. 
cxxxix.  6,  Prov.  xxiv.  7.  "To  ascend  to  heaven,"  or  "to  go 
down  to  hell,"  was  to  do  what  was  impossible,  Amos  ix.  2,  Ps. 
cxxxix.  8,  9.  As  the  sea  was  to  the  ancients  impassable,  it  is 
easy  to  understand  how  the  question,  '  Who  can  pass  over  the 
sea?'  was  tantamount  to  'Who  can  ascend  up  into  heaven?' 
Among  the  later  Jews  the  same  mode  of  expressions  not  unfre- 
quently  occur.  Bava  Mezia,  f.  94,  1.  Si  quis  dixerit  mulieri, 
si  adscenderis  in  firmamentum,  aut  descenderis  in  abyssum,  eris 
mihi  desponsata,  haec  conditio  frustranea  est. —  Wetstein. 

Instead  of  using  the  expression,  'Who  shall  go  over  the  sea 
for  us  ?'  Paul  uses  the  equivalent  phrase,  '  Who  shall  descend 
into  the  deep?'  as  more  pertinent  to  his  object.  The  word 
{a^uaaov)  rendered  deep,  is  the  same  which  elsewhere  is  render- 
ed abyss,  and  properly  means,  without  bottom,  bottomless,  and, 
therefore,  is  often  applied  to  the  sea  as  fathomless.  Gen.  i.  2, 
vii.  11  (in  the  Septuagint),  and  also  to  the  great  cavern  beneath 
the  earth,  which,  in  the  figurative  language  of  the  Scriptures, 
is  spoken  of  as  the  abode  of  the  dead,  and  which  is  often 
opposed  to  heaven.  Job  xxviii.  24,  "  The  abyss  says  it  is  not 
in  me;"  compare  the  enumeration  of  things  in  heaven,  things 
in  earth,  and  things  under  the  earth,  in  Phil.  ii.  10,  and  else- 
where; see  also  Gen.  xlix.  25,  God  "shall  bless  thee  with  the 
blessings  of  heaven  above,  blessings  of  the  abyss  which  lieth 
under."  In  the  New  Testament,  with  the  exception  of  this 
passage,  it  is  always  used  for  the  abode  of  fallen  spirits  and 
lost  souls,  Luke  viii.  31,  Rev.  xvii.  8,  xx.  1,  and  frequently  in 
that  book,  where  it  is  appropriately  rendered  the  bottomless  pit. 
The  expression  is,  therefore,  equivalent  to  that  which  is  com- 
monly rendered  hell  in  our  version.  Psalm  cxxxix.  8,  "  If  I 
make  my  bed  in  hell."  Amos  x.  2,  "Though  they  dig  into 
hell,"  &c.,  and  was  no  doubt  chosen  by  the  apostle,  as  more 
suitable  to  the  reference  to  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  with 
which  he  meant  to  connect  it,  than  the  expression  used  by 
Moses  in  the  same  general  sense,  "Who  shall  pass  over  the 
sea?" 


ROMANS  X.  6,  7.  533 

Paul  connects  each  of  the  questions,  virtually  borrowed  from 
the  Old  Testament,  with  a  comment  designed  to  apply  them 
more  directly  to  the  point  which  he  had  in  view.  Say  not^  Who 
shall  ascend  into  heaven  ?  that  is,  to  bring  Christ  down,  &c. 
The  precise  intent  of  these  comments,  however,  may  be  differ- 
ently understood.  1.  The  words  that  is,  may  be  taken  as 
equivalent  to  namely,  or  to  wit,  and  the  apostle's  comment  be 
connected,  as  an  explanatory  substitute,  with  the  questions, 
'  Say  not  who  shall  ascend  into  heaven  ?  to  wit,  to  bring  Christ 
down ;  or  who  shall  descend  into  the  deep  ?  to  bring  him  up 
again  from  the  dead.  The  sense  would  then  be,  '  The  plan  of 
salvation  by  faith  does  not  require  us  to  do  what  cannot  be 
done,  and  which  is  now  unnecessary ;  it  does  not  require  us  to 
provide  a  Saviour,  to  bring  him  from  heaven,  or  to  raise  him 
from  the  dead ;  a  Saviour  has  been  provided,  and  we  are  now 
only  required  to  believe,  &c.'  2.  The  words  that  is,  may  be 
taken  as  equivalent  to  the  fuller  expression,  that  is  to  say,  '  To 
ask  who  shall  ascend  into  heaven?'  is  as  much  as  to  ask.  Who 
shall  bring  Christ  down  from  above?  And  to  ask,  'Who  shall 
descend  into  the  deep?  is  as  much  as  to  ask,  who  shall  bring 
Christ  again  from  the  dead?'  The  comments  of  the  apostle 
may,  therefore,  be  regarded  as  a  reproof  of  the  want  of  faith 
implied  in  such  questions,  and  the  passage  may  be  thus  under- 
stood. Do  not  reject  the  gospel.  Say  not  in  thy  heart  that 
no  one  can  ascend  to  heaven,  as  the  gospel  says  Christ  has 
done;  and  no  man  can  descend  into  the  abyss  and  thence 
return,  as  is  said  of  Christ.  The  incarnation  of  the  Son  of 
God,  and  his  ascension  to  heaven,  are  not  impossibilities,  which 
would  justify  unbelief.  The  doctrines  of  the  gospel  are  plain 
and  simple. 

Instead  of  regarding  the  apostle  as  intending  to  state  gener- 
ally the  nature  of  the  method  of  justification  by  faith,  many 
suppose  that  it  is  his  object  to  encourage  and  support  a 
desponding  and  anxious  inquirer.  '  Do  not  despairingly  inquire 
who  shall  point  out  the  way  of  life?  No  one,  either  from 
heaven  or  from  the  deep,  will  come  to  teach  me  the  way. 
Speak  not  thus,  for  Christ  has  come  from  heaven,  and  arisen 
from  the  dead  for  your  salvation,  and   no  other  Saviour  is 


534  ROMANS  X.  6,  7. 

required.'*    But  this  view  does  not  seem  to  harmonize  with  the 
spirit  of  the  context. 

It  has  been  questioned  whether  Paul  meant,  in  this  passage, 
merely  to  allude  to  the  language  of  Moses  in  Deut.  xxx.  10 — 14, 
or  whether  he  is  to  be  understood  as  quoting  it  in  such  a 
manner  as  to  imply  that  the  ancient  prophet  was  describing  the 
method  of  justification  by  faith.  This  latter  view  is  taken  by 
Calvin,  De  Brais,  and  many  others.  They  suppose  that  in  the 
passage  quoted  in  the  5th  verse  from  Levit.  xviii.  5,  Moses 
describes  the  legal  method  of  justification,  but  that  here  he  has 
reference  to  salvation  by  faith.  This  is,  no  doubt,  possible.. 
For  in  Deut.  xxx.  10,  &c.,  the  context  shows  that  the  passage 
may  be  understood  of  the  whole  system  of  instruction  given  by 
Moses ;  a  system  which  included  in  it,  under  its  various  types 
and  prophecies,  an  exhibition  of  the  true  method  of  salvation. 
Moses,  therefore,  might  say  with  regard  to  his  own  law,  that  it 
set  before  the  people  the  way  of  eternal  life,  that  they  had  now 
no  need  to  inquire  who  should  procure  this  knowledge  for 
them  from  a  distance,  for  it  was  near  them,  even  in  their  hearts 
and  in  their  mouths.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  very  clear 
that  this  interpretation  is  by  no  means  necessary.  Paul  does 
not  say,  'Moses  describes  the  righteousness  which  is  of  faith 
in  this  wise,'  as  immediately  above  he  had  said  of  the  righteous- 
ness which  is  of  the  law.  There  is  nothing  in  the  language  of 
the  apostle  to  require  us  to  understand  him  as  quoting  Moses 
in  proof  of  his  own  doctrine.  It  is,  indeed,  more  in  accordance 
with  the  spirit  of  the  passage,  to  consider  him  as  merely 
expressing  his  own  ideas  in  scriptural  language,  as  in  ver.  19 
of  this  chapter,  and  frequently  elsewhere.  'Moses  teaches  us 
that  the  legal  method  of  justification  requires  perfect  obedience; 
but  the  righteousness  which  is  by  faith,  requires  no  such  impos- 
sibility, it  demands  only  cordial  faith  and  open  profession. 
The  modern  interpreters  who  understand  the  apostle  as 
quoting  the  language  of  Moses  to  prove  the  true  nature  of  the 
gospel,  differ  among  themselves.  Meyer  and  most  other  advo- 
cates of  this  view  of  the  context,  assume  that  Paul  departs 
entirely  from  the  historical  meaning  of  the  original  text,  and 

*  See  Knapp's  Diatribe  in  Locum  Rom.  x.  4 — 11,  &c..  p.  643  q{  hia  Scripta 
Varii  Argumerdi. 


ROMANS  X.  8.  535 

gives  it  a  sense  foreign  to  the  intention  of  the  sacred  writer. 
Others,  as  Olshausen,  suppose  him  to  give  its  true  spiritual 
sense.  The  passage  in  Deuteronomy  is,  in  this  view,  strictly 
Messianic.  It  describes,  in  contrast  with  the  inexorable 
demand  of  obedience  made  by  the  law,  the  spiritual  power  of 
the  future  dispensation.  All  this,  however,  requires  unneces- 
sary violence  done  both  to  the  passage  in  Deuteronomy  and  to 
the  language  of  the  apostle.  In  tliis  very  chapter,  ver.  18,  we 
have  another  clear  example  of  Paul's  mode  of  expressing  his 
own  ideas  in  the  language  of  the  Scriptures.  This  is  done 
without  hesitation  by  every  preacher  of  the  gospel.  The 
apostle,  therefore,  is  not  to  be  understood  as  saying,  Moses 
describes  the  righteousness  of  the  law  in  one  way,  and  the 
righteousness  of  faith  in  another  way ;  but  he  contrasts  what 
Moses  says  of  the  law  with  what  the  gospel  says. 

According  to  the  interpretation  given  above,  it  is  assumed 
the  design  of  this  passage  is  to  present  the  simplicity  and  suita- 
bleness of  the  gospel  method  of  salvation,  which  requires  only 
faith  and  confession,  in  opposition  to  the  strict  demands  of  the 
law,  which  it  is  as  impossible  for  us  to  satisfy  as  it  is  to  scale 
the  heavens.  According  to  the  other  view,  mentioned  aboye, 
the  design  of  the  apostle  was  to  rebuke  the  unbelief  of  the 
Jews.  They  were  not  to  regard  the  resurrection  and  ascension 
of  Christ  as  impossible.  But  the  whole  context  shows  that  the 
purpose  of  the  apostle  is  to  contrast  the  legal  and  the  gospel 
method  of  salvation — to  show  that  the  one  is  impracticable,  the 
the  other  easy.  By  works  of  the  law  no  flesh  living  can  be 
justified;  whereas,  whosoever  simply  calls  on  the  name  of  the 
Lord  shall  be  saved. 

Verse  8.  But  what  saith  it  f  The  word  is  nigh  thee,  even 
in  thy  mouth  and  in  thy  heart,  that  is,  the  word  of  faith  which 
we  preaeh.  As  the  expressions  to  be  hidden,  to  be  far  off, 
imply  that  the  thing  to  which  they  refer  is  inaccessible  or  diffi- 
cult, so  to  be  near,  to  be  in  the  mouth  and  in  the  heart,  mean  to 
be  accessible,  easy,  and  familiar.  They  are  frequently  thus 
used;  see  Joshua  i.  8,  "This  law  shall  not  depart  out  of  thy 
mouth,"  i.  e.,  it  shall  be  constantly  familiar  to  thee;  Exod. 
xiii.  9,  "That  the  law  maybe  in  thy  mouth;"  Ps.  xxxvii.  31, 
xl.  8.      The  meaning  of  this  passage  then   is,  'The  gospel. 


536  ROMANS  X.  9. 

instead  of  directing  us  to  ascend  into  heaven,  or  to  go  down 
to  the  abyss,  tells  us  the  thing  required  is  simple  and  easy. 
Believe  with  thy  heart  and  thou  shalt  be  saved.'  The  word  is 
nigh  thee,  i.  e.,  the  doctrine  or  truth  contemplated,  and  by  im- 
plication, what  that  doctrine  demands.  Paul,  therefore,  repre- 
sents the  gospel  as  speaking  of  itself.  The  method  of  justifi- 
cation by  faith  says, '  The  word  is  near  thee,  in  thy  mouth,  i.  e., 
the  word  or  doctrine  of  faith  is  thus  easy  and  familiar.'  This 
is  Paul's  own  explanation.  The  expression  word  of  faith,  may 
mean  the  word  or  doctrine  concerning  faith,  or  the  word  to 
which  faith  is  due,  which  should  be  believed.  In  either 
case,  it  is  the  gospel,  or  doctrine  of  justification,  which  is  here 
intended. 

Vekse  9.  That  if  thou  shalt  confess  with  thy  mouth  the  Lord 
Jesus,  &c.  The  connection  of  this  verse  with  the  preceding 
may  be  explained  by  making  the  last  clause  of  ver.  8  a  paren- 
thesis, and  connecting  this  immediately  with  the  first  clause. 
'  It  says,  the  word  is  nigh  thee ;  it  says,  that  if  thou  shalt 
confess  and  believe,  thou  shalt  be  saved.'  According  to  this 
view,  this  verse  is  still  a  part  of  what  the  gospel  is  represented 
as  saying.  Perhaps,  however,  it  is  better  to  consider  this  verse 
as  Paul's  own  language,  and  an  explanation  of  the  "  word  of 
faith"  just  spoken  of.  'The  thing  is  near  and  easy,  to  wit,  the 
word  of  faith  which  we  preach,  that  if  thou  wilt  confess,  &c.* 
The  two  requisites  for  salvation  mentioned  in  this  verse  are 
confession  and  faith.  They  are  mentioned  in  their  natural 
order ;  as  confession  is  the  fruit  and  external  evidence  of  faith. 
So  in  2  Peter  i.  13,  calling  is  placed  before  election,  because 
the  former  is  the  evidence  of  the  latter.  The  thing  to  be  con- 
fessed is  that  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord.  That  is,  we  must  openly 
recognise  his  authority  to  the  full  extent  in  which  he  is  Lord ; 
acknowledge  that  he  is  exalted  above  all  principality  and 
powers,  that  angels  are  made  subject  to  him,  that  all  power  in 
heaven  and  earth  is  committed  unto  him ,  and  of  course  that 
he  is  our  Lord.  This  confession,  therefore,  includes  in  it  an 
acknowledgment  of  Christ's  universal  sovereignty,  and  a 
sincere  recognition  of  his  authority  over  us.  To  confess  Christ 
as  Lord,  is  to  acknowledge  him  as  the  Messiah,  recognised  as 
such  of  God,  and  invested  with  all  the  power  and  prerogatives 


ROMANS  X.  10.  53T 

of  the  Mediatorial  throne.  This  acknowledgment  is  conse- 
quently often  put  for  a  recognition  of  Christ  in  all  his  offices. 
1  Cor.  xii.  3,  "No  man  can  say  that  Jesus  is  the  Lord,  but 
by  the  Holy  Ghost."  Phil.  ii.  11,  "Every  tongue  shall  confess 
that  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord."  'To  preach  the  Lord  Jesus,'  or 
*that  Jesus  is  the  Lord,'  Acts  xi.  20,  is  to  preach  him  as  the 
Saviour  in  all  his  fulness.  Rom.  xiv.  9,  "For  to  this  end 
Christ  both  died,  and  rose,  and  revived,  that  he  might  be  Lord 
both  of  the  dead  and  of  the  living."  The  necessity  of  a  public 
confession  of  Christ  unto  salvation  is  frequently  asserted  in  the 
Scriptures.  Matt.  x.  32,  "  Whosoever,  therefore,  shall  confess 
me  before  men,  him  will  I  confess  also  before  my  Father 
which  is  in  heaven."  Luke  xii.  8,  1  John  iv.  15,  "Whosoever 
shall  confess  that  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God,  God  dwelleth  in 
him,  and  he  in  God." 

The  second  requisite  is  faith.  The  truth  to  be  believed  is 
that  God  hath  raised  Christ  from  the  dead.  That  is,  we  must 
believe  that  by  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  God  has  publicly 
acknowledged  him  to  be  all  that  he  claimed  to  be,  and  has 
publicly  accepted  of  all  that  he  came  to  perform.  He  has 
recognised  him  as  his  Son  and  the  Saviour  of  the  world,  and 
has  accepted  of  his  blood  as  a  sacrifice  for  sin.  See  Rom. 
iv.  25,  i.  4,  Acts  xiii.  32,  33,  1  Peter  i.  3—5,  1  Cor.  xv.  14, 
et  seq.  Acts  xvii.  31,  "Whereof  he  hath  given  assurance  unto 
all  men,  in  that  he  hath  raised  him  from  the  dead.  To 
believe,  therefore,  that  God  has  raised  Christ  from  the  dead, 
involves  the  belief  that  Christ  is  all  that  he  claimed  to  be, 
and  that  he  has  accomplished  all  that  he  came  to  perform. 
In  thy  heart.  Faith  is  very  far  from  being  a  merely  specula- 
tive exercise.  When  moral  or  religious  truth  is  its  object,  it  is 
always  attended  by  the  exercise  of  the  affections.  The  word 
heart,  however,  is  not  to  be  taken  in  its  limited  sense,  for  the 
seat  of  the  affections.  It  means  the  whole  soul,  or  inner  man. 
Confession  is  an  outward  act,  faith  is  an  act  of  the  mind  in  the 
wide  sense  of  that  word.  It  includes  the  understanding  and 
the  affections.  Saving  faith  is  not  mere  intellectual  assent, 
but  a  cordial  receiving  and  resting  on  Christ  alone  for  sal- 
vation. 

Verse  10.  For  with  the  heart  man  helieveth  unto  righteous- 


638  ROMANS  X.  1—10. 

ness,  and  with  the  mouth  confession  is  made  unto  salvation. 
This  is  the  reason  why  faith  and  confession  are  alone  necessary 
unto  salvation ;  because  he  who  believes  with  the  heart  is  justi- 
fied, and  he  who  openly  confesses  Christ  shall  be  saved.  That 
is,  such  is  the  doctrine  of  Scripture,  as  the  apostle  proves  in  the 
subsequent  verse.  Here,  as  in  the  passages  referred  to  above, 
in  which  confession  is  connected  with  salvation,  it  is  evident 
that  it  must  be  not  only  open  but  sincere.  It  is  not  a  mere 
saying,  Lord,  Lord,  but  a  cordial  acknowledgment  of  him, 
before  men,  as  our  Lord  and  Redeemer.  Unto  righteousness, 
i.  e.,  so  that  we  may  become  righteous.  The  word  righteousness 
has  two  senses,  answering  to  the  two  aspects  of  sin,  guilt  and 
moral  depravity.  According  to  the  former  sense,  it  is  that 
which  satisfies  justice;  in  the  latter,  it  is  conformity  to  the 
precepts  of  the  law.  A  man,  therefore,  may  be  righteous  and 
yet  unholy.  Were  this  not  so,  there  could  be  no  salvation  for 
sinners.  If  God  cannot  justify,  or,  pronounce  righteous,  the 
ungodly,  how  could  we  be  justified  ?  Here,  as  generally,  where 
the  subject  of  justification  is  discussed  in  the  Bible,  righteous- 
ness has  its  forensic,  as  distinguished  from  its  moral,  sense. 
And  when  Paul  says,  "With  the  heart  man  believeth  unto 
righteousness,"  he  expresses  the  relation  of  faith,  not  to  our 
sanctification,  but  to  justification.  Unto  salvation  is  equiva- 
lent to  saying  'that  we  maybe  saved.'  The  preposition  ren- 
dered unto,  expressing  here  the  effect  or  result.  Acts  x.  4, 
Heb.  vi.  8.  By  faith  we  secure  an  interest  in  the  righteousness 
of  Christ,  and  by  confessing  him  before  men,  we  secure  the  per- 
formance of  his  promise  that  he  will  confess  us  before  the  angels 
of  God.  Caeterum  viderint  quid  respondeant  Paulo,  qui  nobis 
hodie  imaginariam  quandam  fidem  fastuose  jactant,  quae  secreto 
cordis  contenta,  confessione  oris,  veluti  re  supervacanea  et  inani, 
supersedeat.  Nimis  enim  nugatorium  est,  asserere  ignem  esse, 
ubi  nihil  sit  flammae  neque  caloris. — Calvin. 

DOCTRINE. 

1.  Zeal,  to  be  either  acceptable  to  God  or  useful  to  men,  must 
not  only  be  right  as  to  its  ultimate,  but  also  as  to  its  immediate 
objects.  It  must  not>  only  be  about  God,  but  about  the  things 
which  are  well  pleasing  in  his  sight.     The  Pharisees,  and  other 


ROMANS  X.  1—10.  639 

early  Jewish  persecutors  of  Christians,  really  thought  they  were 
doing  God  service  when  they  were  so  exceedingly  zealous  for 
the  traditions  of  their  fathers.  The  moral  character  of  their 
zeal  and  its  effects  were  determined  by  the  immediate  objects 
towards  which  it  was  directed,  ver.  2. 

2.  The  doctrine  of  justification,  or  method  of  securing  the 
pardon  of  sin  and  acceptance  with  God,  is  the  cardinal  doctrine 
in  the  religion  of  sinners.  The  main  point  is,  whether  the 
ground  of  pardon  and  acceptance  be  in  ourselves  or  in  another, 
whether  the  righteousness  on  which  we  depend  be  of  ourselves 
or  of  God,  ver.  3. 

3.  Ignorance  of  the  divine  character  and  requirements  is  at 
the  foundation  of  all  ill-directed  efforts  for  the  attainment  of 
salvation,  and  of  all  false  hopes  of  heaven,  ver.  3. 

4.  The  first  and  immediate  duty  of  the  sinner  is  to  submit  to 
the  righteousness  of  God ;  to  renounce  all  dependence  on  his 
own  merit,  and  cordially  to  embrace  the  offers  of  reconciliation 
proposed  in  the  gospel,  ver.  3. 

5.  Unbelief,  or  the  refusal  to  submit  to  God's  plan  of  salva- 
tion, is  the  immediate  ground  of  the  condemnation  or  rejection 
of  those  who  perish  under  the  sound  of  the  gospel,  ver.  3. 

6.  Christ  is  every  thing  in  the  religion  of  the  true  believer. 
He  fulfils,  and  by  fulfilling  abolishes  the  law,  by  whose  demands 
the  sinner  was  weighed  down  in  despair ;  and  his  merit  secures 
the  justification  of  every  one  that  confides  in  him,  ver.  4. 

7.  Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law,  whether  moral  or  ceremo- 
nial. To  him  both,  as  a  schoolmaster,  lead.  In  him  all  their 
demands  are  satisfied,  and  all  their  types  and  shadows  are 
answered,  -ver.  4. 

8.  The  legal  method  of  justification  is,  for  sinners,  as 
impracticable  as  climbing  up  into  heaven  or  going  down  into 
the  abyss,  vs.  5 — 7. 

9.  The  demands  of  the  gospel  are  both  simple  and  intelligi- 
ble. The  sincere  acceptance  of  the  proffered  righteousness  of 
God,  and  the  open  acknowledgment  of  Jesus  Christ  as  Lord, 
vs.  6—9. 

10.  The  public  profession  of  religion  or  confession  of  Christ 
is  an  indispensable  duty.  That  is,  in  order  to  salvation,  we 
must  not  only  secretly  believe,  but  also  openly  acknowledge 


640  ROMANS  X.  1—10. 

that  Jesus  is  our  prophet,  priest,  and  king.  Though  faith  and 
confession  are  both  necessary,  they  are  not  necessary  on  the 
same  grounds,  nor  to  the  same  degree.  The  former  is  necessary 
as  a  means  to  an  end,  as  without  faith  we  can  have  no  part  in 
the  justifying  righteousness  of  Christ;  the  latter  as  a  duty,  the 
performance  of  which  circumstances  may  render  impracticable. 
In  like  manner  Christ  declares  baptism,  as  the  appointed  means 
of  confession,  to  be  necessary,  Mark  xvi.  16 ;  not,  however,  as 
a  sine  qua  non,  but  as  a  command,  the  obligation  of  which  pro- 
vidential dispensations  may  remove,  as  in  the  case  of  the  thief 
on  the  cross,  ver.  9. 

11.  Faith  is  not  the  mere  assent  of  the  mind  to  the  truth  of 
certain  propositions.  It  is  a  cordial  persuasion  of  the  truth, 
founded  on  the  experience  of  its  power  or  the  spiritual  percep- 
tion of  its  nature,  and  on  the  divine  testimony.  Faith  is,  there- 
fore, a  moral  exercise.  Men  believe  with  the  heart,  in  the 
ordinary  scriptural  meaning  of  that  word.  And  no  faith,  which 
does  not  proceed  from  the  heart,  is  connected  with  justification, 
ver.  10. 

EEMARKS. 

1.  If  we  really  desire  the  salvation  of  men,  we  shall  pray  for 
it,  ver.  1. 

2.  No  practical  mistake  is  more  common  or  more  dangerous 
than  to  suppose  that  all  zeal  about  God  and  religion  is  neces- 
sarily a  godly  zeal.  Some  of  the  very  worst  forms  of  human 
character  have  been  exhibited  by  men  zealous  for  God  and  his 
service;  as,  for  example,  the  persecutors  both  in  the  Jewish 
and  Christian  churches.  Zeal  should  be  according  to  know- 
ledge, i.  e.,  directed  towards  proper  objects.  Its  true  charac- 
ter is  easily  ascertained  by  noticing  its  effects,  whether  it 
produces  self-righteousness  or  humility,  censoriousness  or  char- 
ity; whether  it  leads  to  self-denial  or  to  self-gratulation  and 
praise ;  and  whether  it  manifests  itself  in  prayer  and  effort,  or 
in  loud  talking  and  boasting,  ver.  2. 

3.  We  should  be  very  careful  what  doctrines  we  hold  and 
teach  on  the  subject  of  justification.  He  who  is  wrong  here, 
ruins  his  own  soul;  and  if  he  teaches  any  other  than  the 
scriptural  method  of  justification,  he  ruins  the  souls  of  others, 
ver.  3. 


ROMANS  X.  11—21.  541 

4.  A  sinner  is  never  safe,  do  what  else  he  may,  until  he  has 
submitted  to  God's  method  of  justification. 

5.,  As  every  thing  in  the  Bible  leads  us  to  Christ,  we  should 
suspect  every  doctrine,  system,  or  theory  which  has  a  contrary 
tendency.  That  view  of  religion  cannot  be  correct  which  does 
not  make  Christ  the  most  prominent  object,  ver.  4. 

6.  How  obvious  and  infatuated  is  the  folly  of  the  multitude 
in  every  age,  country,  and  church,  who,  in  one  form  or 
another,  are  endeavouring  to  work  out  a  righteousness  of  their 
own,  instead  of  submitting  to  the  righteousness  of  God.  They 
are  endeavouring  to  climb  up  to  heaven,  or  to  descend  into  the 
abyss,  vs.  5 — 7. 

7.  The  conduct  of  unbelievers  is  perfectly  inexcusable,  who 
reject  the  simple,  easy,  and  gracious  offers  of  the  gospel,  which 
requires  only  faith  and  confession,  vs.  8 — 9. 

8.  Those  who  are  ashamed  or  afraid  to  acknowledge  Christ 
before  men,  cannot  expect  to  be  saved.  The  want  of  courage 
to  confess,  is  decisive  evidence  of  the  want  of  heart  to  believe, 
vs.  9,  10. 


ROMANS   X.  11—21. 

ANALYSIS. 

The  object  of  the  apostle  in  the  preceding  comparison  and 
contrast  of  the  two  methods  of  justification,  was  to  show  that 
the  gospel  method  was,  from  its  nature,  adapted  to  all  men; 
and  that  if  suited  to  all  it  should  be  preached  to  all.  In 
ver.  11  the  quotation  from  the  Old  Testament  proves  two 
points.  1.  That  faith  is  the  condition  of  acceptance;  and 
2.  That  it  matters  not  whether  the  individual  be  a  Jew  or 
Gentile,  if  he  only  believes.  For  there  is  really  no  difference, 
as  to  this  point,  between  the  two  classes ;  God  is  equally  gra- 
cious to  both,  as  is  proved  by  the  express  declarations  of 
Scripture,  vs.  12,  13.  If,  then,  the  method  of  salvation  be 
thus  adapted  to  all,  and  God  is  equally  the  God  of  the  Gen- 
tiles and  of  the  Jews,  then,  to  accomplish  his  purpose,  the 
gospel  must  be  preached  to  all  men,  because  faith  cometh  by 
hearing,  ver.  14 — 17.     Both  the  fact  of  the  extension  of  the 


542  ROMANS  X.  11,  12. 

gospel  to  the  Gentiles,  and  the  disobedience  of  the  great  part 
of  the  Jews,  were  clearly  predicted  in  the  writings  of  *the  Old 
Testament,  vs.  18—21. 

COMMENTARY, 

Verse  11.  For  the  Scripture  saith,  Whosoever  lelieveth  on 
him  shall  not  he  ashamed.  This  passage  is  cited  in  support  of 
the  doctrine  just  taught,  that  faith  alone  is  necessary  to  salva- 
tion. There  are  clearly  two  points  established  by  the  quota- 
tion ;  the  first  is,  the  universal  applicability  of  this  method  of 
salvation ;  WHOSOEVER,  whether  Jew  or  Gentile,  believes,  &c. ; 
and  the  second  is,  that  it  is  faith  which  is  the  means  of  securing 
the  divine  favour;  whosoever  believes  on  him  shall  not  be 
ashamed.  The  passage,  therefore,  is  peculiarly  adapted  to  the 
apostle's  object;  which  was  not  merely  to  exhibit  the  true 
nature  of  the  plan  of  redemption,  but  mainly  to  show  the 
propriety  of  its  extension  to  the  Gentiles.  The  passage 
quoted  is  Isa.  xxviii.  16,  referred  to  at  the  close  of  the  pre- 
ceding chapter.  We  must  not  only  believe  Christ,  but  believe 
upon  him.  The  language  of  Paul  is,  na^  6  marsuiov  ^tt'  auza), 
ncazeh^cv  irri  rivc,  to  trust  upon  any  one.  That  is,  it  expresses 
confiding  reliance  on  its  object.  It  is  all  important  to  know 
what  the  Bible  teaches,  both  as  to  the  object  and  nature  of 
saving  faith.  That  object  is  Christ,  and  saving  faith  is  trust. 
He  is  so  complete  a  Saviour  as  to  be  able  to  save  all  who  come 
unto  God  by  him;  and  therefore  whosoever  believeth  on  him 
shall  not  be  ashamed.  Hoc  monosyllabon,  says  Bengel,  nd^ 
(omnis),  toto  mundo  pretiosus,  propositum,  ver.  11,  ita  repetitur, 
ver.  12  et  13,  et  ita  confirmatur  ulterius,  vs.  14,  15,  ut  non 
modo  significet,  quicumque  invocaret,  salvum  fore ;  sed,  Deum 
velle,  se  invocari  ab  omnibus  salutariter. 

Verse  12.  For  there  is  no  difference  between  the  Jew  and 
the  Greek,  &c.  This  verse  is  evidently  connected  logically 
with  the  whosoever  of  ver.  12,  '  Whosoever  believes  shall  be 
saved,  for  there  is  no  difierence  between  the  Jew  and  Gentile.' 
That  is,  there  is  no  difference  in  their  relation  to  the  law  or  to 
God.  They  are  alike  sinners,  and  are  to  be  judged  by  pre- 
cisely the  same  principles,  (see  chap.  iii.  22) ;  and  conse- 
quently, if  saved  at  all,  are  to  be  saved  in  precisely  the  same 


ROMANS  X.  12.  543 

way.  For  the  same  Lord  over  all,  is  rich  unto  all  who  call  upon 
him.  This  is  the  reason  why  there  is  no  difference  between  the 
two  classes.  Their  relation  to  God  is  the  same.  They  are 
equally  his  creatures,  and  his  mercy  towards  them  is  the  same. 
It  is  doubtful  whether  this  clause  is  to  be  understood  of  Christ 
or  of  God.  If  the  latter,  the  general  meaning  is  what  has  just 
been  stated.  If  the  former,  then  the  design  is  to  declare  that 
the  same  Saviour  is  ready  and  able  to  save  all.  In  favour  of 
this  latter,  which  is  perhaps  the  most  common  view  of  the 
passage,  it  may  be  urged  that  Christ  is  the  person  referred  to 
in  the  preceding  verse ;  and  secondly,  that  he  is  so  commonly 
called  Lord  in  the  New  Testament.  But,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  Lord  in  the  next  verse  refers  to  God;  and  secondly,  we 
have  the  same  sentiment,  in  the  same  general  connection,  in 
chap.  iii.  29,  30,  "Is  he  the  God  of  the  Jews  only?  &c.  It  is 
the  same  God  which  shall  justify  the  circumcision  by  faith,  and 
the  uncircumcision  through  faith."  The  same  Lord  over  all, 
in  this  connection,  means  'one  and  the  same  Lord  is  over  all.' 
All  are  equally  under  his  dominion,  and  may,  therefore, 
equally  hope  in  his  mercy.  As  good  reasons  may  be  assigned 
for  both  interpretations,  commentators  are  nearly  equally 
divided  on  the  question  whether  the  immediate  reference  be  to 
Christ  or  to  God.  Doctrinally,  it  matters  little  which  view  be 
preferred.  Faith  in  God  is  faith  in  Christ,  for  Christ  is  God. 
This  is  the  great  truth  to  be  acknowledged.  The  condition  of 
salvation,  under  the  gospel,  is  the  invocation  of  Christ  as  God. 
The  analogy  of  Scripture,  therefore,  as  well  as  the  context,  is 
in  favour  of  the  immediate  reference  of  x'jpcoz  to  Christ.  The 
words  is  rich,  may  be  either  a  concise  expression  for  is  rich  in 
mercy,  or  they  may  mean  is  abundant  in  resources.  He  is  suf- 
ficiently rich  to  supply  the  wants  of  all ;  whosoever,  therefore, 
believes  in  him  shall  be  saved. 

Unto  all  who  call  upon  him,  i.  e.,  who  invoke  him,  or 
worship  him,  agreeably  to  the  frequent  use  of  the  phrase  irrthe 
Old  and  New  Testament,  Gen.  iv.  26,  xii.  8,  Isa.  Ixiv.  6,  Acts 
ii.  21,  ix.  14,  xxii.  16,  1  Cor  i.  2,  2  Tim.  ii.  22.  This  religious 
invocation  of  God  implied,  of  course,  the  exercise  of  faith  in 
him ;  and,  therefore,  it  amounts  to  the  same  thing  whether  it  is 
said,  'Whosoever  believes,'  or,  '  Whosoever  calls  on  the  name 


544  ROMANS  X.  13. 

of  the  Lord,  shall  be  saved.  This  being  the  case,  the  passage 
quoted  from  Joel,  in  the  next  verse,  is  equivalent  to  that  cited 
from  Isaiah,  in  verse  11.  The  meaning,  then,  of  this  verse  is, 
'  That  God  has  proposed  the  same  terms  of  salvation  to  all  men, 
Jews  and  Gentiles,  because  he  is  equally  the  God  of  both,  and 
his  mercy  is  free  and  sufficient  for  all.' 

Verse  13.  For  whosoever  shall  call  upon  the  name  of  the 
Lord  shall  he  saved.  As  this  verse  is  not  introduced  by  the 
usual  form  of  quotation  from  the  Old  Testament,  as  it  is  ivritten^ 
or  as  the  Scripture,  or  the  i^ro-phet  saith,  it  is  not  absolutely 
necessary  to  consider  it  as  a  direct  citation,  intended  as  an 
argument  from  Scripture,  (compare  ver.  11.)  Yet,  as  the 
passage  is  in  itself  so  pertinent,  it  is  probable  that  the  apostle 
intended  to  confirm  his  declaration,  that  the  mercy  of  God 
should  be  extended  to  every  one  who  called  upon  him,  by 
showing  that  the  ancient  prophets  had  held  the  same  language. 
The  prophet  Joel,  after  predicting  the  dreadful  calamities  which 
were  about  to  come  upon  the  people,  foretold,  in  the  usual 
manner  of  the  ancient  messengers  of  God,  that  subsequent  to 
those  judgments  should  come  a  time  of  great  and  general 
blessedness.  This  happy  period  was  ever  characterized  as  one 
in  which  true  religion  should  prevail,  and  the  stream  of  divine 
truth  and  love,  no  longer  confined  to  the  narrow  channel  of  the 
Jewish  people,  should  overflow  all  nations.  Thus  Joel  says, 
"  It  shall  come  to  pass  afterward,  that  I  will  pour  out  my  Spirit 
upon  all  flesh,  &c.,  and  whosoever  shall  call  upon  the  name 
of  the  Lord  shall  be  delivered,"  Joel  ii.  28,  32,  Whosoever, 
therefore,  betakes  himself  to  God  as  his  refuge,  and  calls  upon 
him,  in  the  exercise  of  faith,  as  his  God,  shall  be  saved,  whether 
Gentile  or  Jew,  (see  1  Cor.  i.  2.)  The  prophecy  in  Joel  has 
direct  reference  to  the  Messianic  period,  and  therefore  the  Lord, 
who  was  to  be  invoked,  who  was  to  be  looked  to,  and  be  called 
upon  for  salvation,  is  the  Messiah.  All,  whosoever,  without 
any.,  limitation  as  to  family  or  nation,  who  call  on  him,  shall  be 
saved.  This  is  Paul's  doctrine,  and  the  doctrine,  with  one 
accord,  of  all  the  holy  men  who  spake  of  old,  as  the  Spirit  gave 
them  utterance.  This  being  the  case,  how  utterly  preposterous 
and  wicked  the  attempt  to  confine  the  ofi'ers  of  salvation  to  the 
Jewish  people,  or  to  question  the  necessity  of  the  extension  of 


ROMANS  X.  14,  15.  545 

• 
the  gospel  through  the  whole  world.  Thus  naturally  and  beau- 
tifully does  the  apostle  pass  from  the  nature  of  the  plan  of 
mercy,  and  its  suitableness  to  all  men,  to  the  subject  princi- 
pally in  view,  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles,  or  the  duty  of 
preaching  the  gospel  to  all  people. 

Verses  14,  15.  How  then  shall  they  call  on  him  in  ivhom 
they  have  not  believed?  and  how  shall  they  believe  in  Mm  of 
whom  they  have  not  heard?  &c.,  &c.  Paul  considered  it  as 
involved  in  what  he  had  already  said,  and  especially  in  the 
predictions  of  the  ancient  prophets,  that  it  was  the  will  of  God 
that  all  men  should  call  upon  him.  This  being  the  case,  he 
argues  to  prove  that  it  was  his  will  that  the  gospel  should  be 
preached  to  all.  As  invocation  implies  faith,  as  faith  implies 
knowledge,  knowledge  instruction,  and  instruction  an  instructor, 
so  it  is  plain  that  if  God  would  have  all  men  to  call  upon  him, 
he  designed  preachers  to  be  sent  to  all,  whose  proclamation  of 
mercy  being  heard,  might  be  believed,  and  being  believed, 
might  lead  men  to  call  on  him  and  be  saved.  This  is  agreeable 
to  the  prediction  of  Isaiah,  who  foretold  that  the  advent  of 
the  preachers  of  the  gospel  should  be  hailed  with  great  and 
universal  joy.  According  to  this,  which  is  the  common  and 
most  natural  view  of  the  passage,  it  is  an  argument  founded  on 
the  principle,  that  if  God  wills  the  end,  he  wills  also  the  means ; 
if  he  would  have  the  Gentiles  saved,  according  to  the  predic- 
tions of  his  prophets,  he  would  have  the  gospel  preached  to 
them.  "  Qui  vult  finem,  vult  etiam  media.  Deus  vult  ut  homines 
invocent  ipsum  salutariter.  Ergo  vult  ut  credant.  Ergo  vult 
ut  audiant.  Ergo  vult  ut  habeant  praedicatores.  Itaque  prae- 
dicatores  misit." — Bengel.  Calvin's  view  of  the  object  of  the 
passage  is  the  same,  but  his  idea  of  the  nature  of  the  argument 
is  very  different.  He  supposes  the  apostle  to  reason  thus. 
The  Gentiles  actually  call  upon  God;  but  invocation  implies 
faith,  faith  hearing,  hearing  preaching,  and  preaching  a  divine 
mission.  If,  therefore,  the  Gentiles  have  actually  received  and 
obeyed  the  gospel,  it  is  proof  enough  that  God  designed  it  to 
be  sent  to  them.  This  interpretation  is  ingenious,  and  affords  a 
good  sense ;  but  it  is  founded  on  an  assumption  which  the  Jew 
would  be  slow  to  admit,  that  the  Gentile  was  an  acceptable 
worshipper  of  God.  If  he  admitted  this,  he  admitted  every 
35 


546  ROMANS  X.  15,  16. 

thing  and  the  argument  becomes  unnecessary.  According  to 
De  Wette,  Meyer,  and  others,  the  design  of  the  apostle  is  to 
show  the  necessity  of  divine  messengers  in  order  to  ground 
thereon  a  reproof  of  disobedience  to  that  message.  The  whole 
context,  however,  shows,  that  he  is  not  here  assigning  the 
reasons  for  the  rejection  of  the  Jews,  but  vindicating  the  pro- 
priety of  preaching  to  the  Gentiles.  God  had  predicted  that 
the  Gentiles  should  be  saved ;  he  had  provided  a  method  of  sal- 
vation adapted  to  all  men;  he  had  declared  that  whosoever 
called  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord  should  be  saved ;  from  which 
it  follows,  that  it  is  his  will  that  they  should  hear  of  him  whom 
they  were  required  to  invoke. 

Verse  15.  As  it  is  written,  Sow  beautiful  are  the  feet 
of  them  that  preach  the  gospel  of  peace,  and  bring  glad  tidings 
of  good  things.  The  word  here  rendered  preach  the  gospel, 
is  the  same  as  that  immediately  afterwards  translated,  bring 
glad  tidings.  The  word  gospel,  therefore,  must  be  taken  in 
its  original  meaning,  good  news,  the  good  news  of  peace.  The 
passage  in  Isa.  lii.  7,  which  the  apostle  faithfully,  as  to  the 
meaning,  follows,  has  reference  to  the  Messiah's  kingdom. 
It  is  one  of  those  numerous  prophetic  declarations,  which 
announce  in  general  terms  the  coming  deliverance  of  the 
Church,  a  deliverance  which  embraced,  at  the  first  stage  of 
its  accomplishment,  the  restoration  from  the  Babylonish  cap- 
tivity. This,  however,  so  far  from  being  the  blessing  princi- 
pally intended,  derived  all  its  value  from  being  introductory 
to  that  more  glorious  deliverance  to  be  eifected  by  the 
Redeemer.  Sow  beautiful  the  feet,  of  course  means,  how 
delightful  the  approach.  The  bearing  of  this  passage  on  the 
object  of  the  apostle  is  sufficiently  obvious.  He  had  proved 
that  the  gospel  should  be  preached  to  all  men,  and  refers 
to  the  declaration  of  the  ancient  prophet,  which  spoke  of  the 
joy  with  which  the  advent  of  the  messengers  of  mercy  should 
be  hailed. 

Verse  16.  But  they  have  not  all  obeyed  the  gospel,  for  Isaiah 
saith,  Lord,  who  hath  believed  our  report  f  This  verse  may  be 
viewed  as  an  objection  to  the  apostle's  doctrine,  confirmed  by 
the  quotation  of  a  passage  from  Isaiah.  '  You  say  the  gospel 
ought  to  be  preached  to  all  men,  but  if  God  had  intended 


ROMANS  X.  17.  547 

that  it  should  be  preached  to  them,  they  would  obey  it ;  which 
they  have  not  done.'  This  view  of  the  passage  would  have 
some  plausibility  if  Calvin's  representation  of  Paul's  argument 
were  correct.  Did  the  apostle  reason  from  the  fact  that  the 
Gentiles  believed  that  it  was  God's  intention  they  should  have 
the  gospel  preached  to  them,  it  would  be  very  natural  to  object, 
that  as  only  a  few  have  obeyed,  it  was  evidently  not  designed 
for  them.  But  even  on  the  supposition  of  the  correctness  of 
this  view  of  the  argument,  this  interpretation  of  ver.  16  is 
barely  possible,  for  the  quotation  from  Isaiah  cannot  be  under- 
stood otherwise  than  as  the  language  of  the  apostle,  or  as 
intended  to  confirm  what  he  himself  had  said.  There  is  no 
necessity  for  the  assumption  that  this  verse  is  the  language  of 
an  objection.  Paul  had  said  that  the  preaching  of  the  gospel 
to  all  men,  whether  Jews  or  Gentiles,  was  according  to  the  will 
of  God.  This  is  true  although  {dUd)  all  have  not  obeyed. 
This  disobedience  was  foreseen  and  predicted,  for  Isaiah  saith, 
Lord,  who  hath  believed  our  report?  The  complaint  of  the 
prophet  was  not  confined  to  the  men  of  his  generation.  It  had 
reference  mainly  to  the  general  rejection  of  the  gospel,  especi- 
ally by  the  theocratical  people.  Christ  came  to  his  own,  and 
his  own  received  him  not.  And  this  was  predicted  of  old.  Our 
report,  or  message.  The  word  is  dxarj,  literally  the  faculty  or 
act  of  hearing;  then,  metonymically,  what  is  heard,  i.  e.,  a 
message,  preaching,  or  teaching.  The  message  of  the  prophet 
concerning  the  servant  of  the  Lord,  and  what  he  was  to  do  and 
sufi'er  for  his  people,  as  recorded  in  Isa.  liii.,  it  was  predicted 
would  be  believed  by  the  great  majority  of  those  to  whom  it 
was  addressed. 

Verse  17.  So  then  faith  (cometh)  bi/  hearing,  and  hearing 
by  the  word  of  Grod.  The  passage  in  Isaiah  speaks  of  an  dxoij, 
a  message,  something  addressed  to  the  ear.  The  design  of  that 
message  was  that  men  should  believe.  They  were  required  to 
receive  and  rest  upon  it  as  true.  Without  it,  there  could  be 
no  ground  of  faith ;  nothing  on  which  faith  could  rest.  There- 
fore faith  is  from  hearing.  It  is  receiving  the  message  as  true. 
But  this  message  is  by  the  word  or  command  of  God.  It  is 
therefore  a  sure  foundation  of  faith.  And  as  all  men  are 
required  to  believe,  the  message  should  be  sent  to  all,  and  the 


548  ROMANS  X.  18. 

divine  command  on  which  it  rests,  must  include  an  injunction 
to  make  the  proclamation  universal.  Thus  the  two  ideas  pre- 
sented in  the  context,  viz.,  the  necessity  of  knowledge  to  faith, 
and  the  purpose  of  God  to  extend  that  knowledge  to  the  Gen- 
tiles, are  both  confirmed  in  this  verse.  The  above  is  the  common 
interpretation  of  this  passage.  It  assumes  that  prjfxa  6sou  is  to 
be  taken  in  the  sense  of  command  of  God,  whereas  it  commonly 
means  the  word  or  message  of  God.  If  this  sense  be  retained 
here,  then  dxoij  must  mean  the  act  of  hearing.  '  Faith  cometh 
by  hearing,  and  hearing  supposes  something  to  be  heard,  a 
p^fjta,  or  word  of  God.'  In  Luke  v.  5,  Heb.  xi.  3,  (compare 
Heb.  i.  3,)  p^fta  dsoo  means  God's  (or  the  Lord's)  command. 
There  is  no  necessity,  therefore,  for  giving  dxoTj  a  difierent 
sense  here  from  that  which  it  must  have  in  the  preceding 
verse. 

Verse  18.  But  I  sat/,  Have  they  not  heard?  Yes,  verily, 
their  sound  went  into  all  the  earth,  &c.  The  concise  and  abrupt 
manner  of  argument  and  expression  in  this  and  the  verses 
which  precede  and  follow,  renders  the  apostle's  meaning  some- 
what doubtful.  This  verse  is  frequently  considered  as  referring 
to  the  Jews,  and  designed  to  show  that  their  want  of  faith  could 
not  be  excused  on  the  ground  of  want  of  knowledge.  The  sense 
of  the  passage  would  then  be,  'As  faith  cometh  by  hearing, 
have  not  the  Jews  heard  ?  Have  they  not  had  the  opportunity 
of  believing  ?  Yes,  indeed,  for  the  gospel  has  been  proclaimed 
far  and  wide.'  So  Koppe,  Flatt,  Tholuck,  Meyer,  Philippi,  &c. 
But  there  are  several  objections  to  this  view  of  the  passage. 
In  the  first  place,  it  is  not  in  harmony  with  the  context. 
Paul  is  not  speaking  now  of  the  rejection  of  the  Jews,  or  the 
grounds  of  it,  but  of  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles.  2.  If  the 
16th  verse  refers  to  the  Gentiles,  "  They  have  not  all  obeyed 
the  gospel,"  and  therefore  this  verse,  "Have  they  not  heard?" 
cannot,  without  any  intimation  of  change,  be  naturally  referred 
to  a  different  subject.  3.  In  the  following  verse,  where  the 
Jews  are  really  intended,  they  are  distinctly  mentioned,  "  Did 
not  Israel  know?" 

Paul's  object  in  the  whole  context  is  to  vindicate  the  pro- 
priety of  extending  the  gospel  call  to  all  nations.  This  he  had 
beautifully  done  in  vs.  14,  15,  by  showing  that  preaching  was 


ROMANS  X.  18.  549 

a  necessary  means  of  accomplishing  the  clearly  revealed  will  of 
God,  that  men  of  all  nations  should  participate  in  his  grace. 
'True,  indeed,  as  had  been  foretold,  the  merciful  offers  of  the 
gospel  were  not  universally  accepted,  ver.  16,  but  still  faith 
cometh  by  hearing,  and  therefore  the  gospel  should  be  widely 
preached,  ver.  17.  Well,  has  not  this  been  done  ?  has  not  the 
angel  of  mercy  broke  loose  from  his  long  confinement  within 
the  pale  of  the  Jewish  Church,  and  flown  through  the  heavens 
with  the  proclamation  of  love?'  ver.  18.  This  verse,  therefore, 
is  to  be  considered  as  a  strong  declaration  that  what  Paul  had 
proved  ought  to  be  done,  had  in  fact  been  accomplished.  The 
middle  wall  of  partition  had  been  broken  down,  the  gospel  of 
salvation,  the  religion  of  God,  was  free  from  its  trammels,  the 
offers  of  mercy  were  as  wide  and  general  as  the  proclamation 
of  the  heavens.  This  idea  the  apostle  beautifully  and  appo- 
sitely expresses  in  the  sublime  language  of  Psalm  xix.,  "The 
heavens  declare  the  glory  of  God,  day  unto  day  uttereth  speech, 
there  is  no  speech  nor  language  where  their  voice  is  not  heard, 
their  line  is  gone  through  all  the  earth,  and  their  words  to  the 
end  of  the  world."  The  last  verse  contains  the  words  used  by 
the  apostle.  His  object  in  using  the  words  of  the  Psalmist  was, 
no  doubt,  to  convey  more  clearly  and  affectingly  to  the  minds 
of  his  hearers  the  idea  that  the  proclamation  of  the  gospel  was 
now  as  free  from  all  national  or  ecclesiastical  restrictions,  as 
the  instructions  shed  down  upon  all  people  by  the  heavens 
under  which  they  dwell.  Paul,  of  course,  is  not  to  be  under- 
stood as  quoting  the  Psalmist  as  though  the  ancient  prophet 
was  speaking  of  the  preaching  of  the  gospel.  He  simply  uses 
scriptural  language  to  express  his  own  ideas,  as  is  done  involun- 
tarily, almost  by  every  preacher  in  every  sermon.*  It  is,  how- 
ever, nevertheless  true,  as  Hengstenberg  remarks  in  his  Christ- 
ology,  that  "  The  universal  revelation  of  God  in  nature,  was  a 

*  Calvin's  view  of  this  passage  is  peculiar — Quaerit,  an  Deus  nunquam  ante 
gentes  vocem  suam  direxit,  et  doctoris  officio  functus  sit  erga  totum  mundum. 
— Accipio  igitur  ejus  citationem  in  proprio  et  germano  prophetae  sensu,  ut  tale 
sit  argumentum :  Deus  jam  ab  initio  mundi  suam  gentibus  divinitatem  mani- 
festaret,  et  si  non  hominum  praedicatione,  creaturarum  tamen  suaium  testi- 
monio. — Apparet  ergo,  Dominum  etiam  pro  eo  tempore,  quo  foederis  sui  gra- 
tiam  in  Israele  continebat,  non  tamen  ita  sui  notitiam  gentibus  subduxisse, 
quin  aliquam  semper  illis  scintillam  accenderet. 


550  ROMANS  X.  19. 

providential  prediction  of  the  universal  proclamation  of  the 
gospel.  If  the  former  was  not  fortuitous,  but  founded  in  the 
nature  of  God,  so  must  the  latter  be.  The  manifestation  of  God 
in  nature,  is,  for  all  his  creatures  to  whom  it  is  made,  a  pledge 
of  their  participation  in  the  clearer  and  higher  revelations." 

It  will  be  perceived  that  the  apostle  says,  "  Their  sound  has 
gone,  &c.,"  whereas  in  the  19th  Psalm  it  is, ''Their  line  is 
gone."  Paul  follows  the  Septuagint,  which,  instead  of  giving 
the  literal  sense  of  the  Hebrew  word,  gives  correctly  its  figura- 
tive meaning.  The  word  signifies  a  line,  then  a  musical  chord, 
and  then,  metonymically,  sound. 

Verse  19.  But  I  say,  Did  not  Israel  know?  First  Moses 
saith,  I  will  provoke  you  to  jealousy,  &c.  Another  passage 
difficult  from  its  conciseness.  The  difficulty  is  to  ascertain 
what  the  question  refers  to.  Did  not  Israel  know  what  ?  The 
gospel?  or.  The  calling  of  the  Gentiles  and  their  own  rejection? 
The  latter  seems,  for  two  reasons,  the  decidedly  preferable 
interpretation.  1.  The  question  is  most  naturally  understood 
as  referring  to  the  main  subject  under  discussion,  which  is,  as 
frequently  remarked,  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles  and  rejection 
of  the  Jews.  2.  The  question  is  explained  by  the  quotations 
which  follow.  '  Does  not  Israel  know  what  Moses  and  Isaiah 
80  plainly  teach?'  viz.,  that  a  people  who  were  no  people, 
should  be  preferred  to  Israel;  while  the  latter  were  to  be 
regarded  as  disobedient  and  gainsaying.  According  to  the 
other  interpretation,  the  meaning  of  the  apostle  is,  '  Does  not 
Israel  know  the  gospel  ?  Have  not  the  people  of  God  been 
instructed?  If,  therefore,  as  was  predicted,  they  are  super- 
seded by  the  heathen,  it  must  be  their  own  fault.'  Calvin 
thinks  there  is  an  evident  contrast  between  this  and  the  pre- 
ceding verse.  '  If  even  the  heathen  have  had  some  knowledge 
of  God,  how  is  it  with  Israel,  the  favoured  people  of  God?  &c.' 
But  this  whole  interpretation,  as  intimated  above,  is  incon- 
sistent with  the  drift  of  the  context,  and  the  spirit  of  the 
passages  quoted  from  the  Old  Testament. 

First  Moses  says,  I  will  provoke  you  to  jealousy  hy  them 
that  are  no  people,  &c.  The  word  jirst  seems  evidently  to  be 
used  in  reference  to  Isaiah,  who  is  quote^  afterward,  and  should 
not  be  connected,  as  it  is  by  many,  with  Israel.     'Did  not 


ROMANS  X.  20,  21.  561 

Israel  first  learn  the  gospel?  &c.'  So  Storr,  Flatt,  &c.  Better 
in  the  ordinary  way,  'First  Moses,  and  then  Isaiah,  say,  &c.* 
The  passage  quoted  from  Moses  is  Deut.  xxxii.  21.  In  that 
chapter  the  sacred  writer  recounts  the  mercies  of  God,  and  the 
ingratitude  and  rebellion  of  the  people.  In  ver.  21  he  warns 
them,  that  as  they  had  provoked  him  to  jealousy  by  that  which 
is  not  God,  he  would  provoke  them  to  jealousy  by  them  that 
are  no  people.  That  is,  as  they  forsook  him  and  made  choice 
of  another  god,  so  he  would  reject  them  and  make  choice  of 
another  people.  The  passage,  therefore,  plainly  enough  inti- 
mates that  the  Jews  were  in  no  such  sense  the  people  of  God, 
as  to  interfere  with  their  being  cast  off  and  others  called. 

Verses  20,  21.  But  Usaias  is  very  holdy  and  saithy  &c. 
That  is,  according  to  a  very  common  Hebrew  construction, 
in  which  one  verb  qualifies  another  adverbially,  saitJi  very 
plainly  or  openly.  Plain  as  the  passage  in  Deuteronomy  is, 
it  is  not  so  clear  and  pointed  as  that  now  referred  to,  Isaiah 
Ixv.  1,  2. 

Paul  follows  the  Septuagint  version  of  the  passage,  merely 
transposing  the  clauses.  The  sense  is  accurately  expressed. 
'I  am  sought  of  them  that  asked  not /or  me,  I  am  found  of  them 
that  sought  me  not,'  is  the  literal  version  of  the  Hebrew,  as 
given  in  our  translation.  The  apostle  quotes  and  applies  the 
passage  in  the  sense  in  which  it  is  to  be  interpreted  in  the 
ancient  prophet.  In  the  first  verse  of  that  chapter  Isaiah  says, 
that  God  will  manifest  himself  to  those  "  who  were  not  called 
by  his  name;"  and  in  the  second,  he  gives  the  immediate 
reason  of  this  turning  unto  the  Gentiles,  "  I  have  stretched  out 
my  hand  all  the  day  to  a  rebellious  people."  This  quotation, 
therefore,  confirms  both  the  great  doctrines  taught  in  this 
chapter;  the  Jews  were  no  longer  the  exclusive  or  peculiar 
people  of  God,  and  the  blessings  of  the  Messiah's  kingdom  were 
thrown  wide  open  to  all  mankind.  With  regard  to  Israel,  the 
language  of  God  is  peculiarly  strong  and  tender.  All  day  long 
I  have  stretched  forth  my  hands.  The  stretching  forth  the 
hands  is  the  gesture  of  invitation,  and  even  supplication.  God 
has  extended  wide  his  arms,  and  urged  men  frequently  and 
long  to  return  to  his  love ;  and  it  is  only  those  who  refuse, 
that  he  finally  rejects. 


552  ROMANS  X.  11—21. 


DOCTRINE. 

1.  Christianity  is,  from  its  nature,  adapted  to  be  an  universal 
religion.  There  is  nothing,  as  was  the  case  with  Judaism, 
which  binds  it  to  a  particular  location,  or  confines  it  to  a  par- 
ticular people.  All  its  duties  may  be  performed,  and  all  its 
blessings  enjoyed,  in  every  part  of  the  world,  and  by  every 
nation  under  heaven,  vs.  11 — 13. 

2.  The  relation  of  men  to  God,  and  his  to  them,  is  not 
determined  by  any  national  or  ecclesiastical  connection.  He 
deals  with  all,  on  the  same  general  principles,  and  is  ready  to 
save  all  who  call  upon  him,  ver.  12. 

3.  Whosoever  will,  may  take  of  the  water  of  life.  The 
essential  conditions  of  salvation  have  in  every  age  been  the 
same.  Even  under  the  Old  Testament  dispensation,  God 
accepted  all  who  sincerely  invoked  his  name,  ver.  13. 

4.  The  preaching  of  the  gospel  is  the  great  means  of  salva- 
tion, and  it  is  the  will  of  God  that  it  should  be  extended  to  all 
people,  vs.  14,  15. 

5.  As  invocation  implies  faith,  and  faith  requires  knowledge, 
and  knowledge  instruction,  and  instruction  teachers,  and 
teachers  a  mission,  it  is  evident  not  only  that  God  wills  that 
teachers  should  be  sent  to  all  those  whom  he  is  willing  to  save, 
when  they  call  upon  him,  but  that  all  parts  of  this  divinely 
connected  chain  of  causes  and  effects  are  necessary  to  the  end 
proposed,  viz.,  the  salvation  of  men.  It  is,  therefore,  as 
incumbent  on  those  who  have  the  power,  to  send  the  gospel 
abroad,  as  it  is  on  those  to  whom  it  is  sent,  to  receive  it, 
vs.  14,  15. 

6.  As  the  rudiments  of  the  tree  are  in  the  seed,  so  all  the 
elements  of  the  New  Testament  doctrines  are  in  the  Old.  The 
Christian  dispensation  is  the  explanation,  fulfilment,  and  de- 
velopement  of  the  Jewish,  vs.  11,  13,  15. 

REMARKS. 

1.  Christians  should  breathe  the  spirit  of  an  universal  religion. 
A  religion  which  regards  all  men  as  brethren,  which  looks  on 
God,  not  as  the  God  of  this  nation,  or  of  that  church,  but  as 
the  God  and  Father  of  all,  which  proposes  to  all  the  same  con- 


ROMANS  X.  10,  11—21.  BBS 

ditions  of  acceptance,  and  which  opens  equally  to  all  the  same 
boundless  and  unsearchable  blessings,  vs.  11 — 13. 

2.  It  must  be  very  offensive  to  God,  who  looks  on  all  men 
with  equal  favour,  (except  as  moral  conduct  makes  a  difference,) 
to  observe  how  one  class  of  mortals  looks  down  upon  another, 
on  account  of  some  merely  adventitious  difference  of  rank, 
colour,  external  circumstances,  or  social  or  ecclesiastical  con- 
nection, ver.  12. 

3.  How  will  the  remembrance  of  the  simplicity  and  reasona- 
bleness of  the  plan  of  salvation,  and  the  readiness  of  God  to 
accept  of  all  who  call  upon  him,  overwhelm  those  who  perish 
from  beneath  the  sound  of  the  gospel !  ver.  13. 

4.  It  is  the  first  and  most  pressing  duty  of  the  church  to 
cause  all  men  to  hear  the  gospel.  The  solemn  question,  implied 
in  the  language  of  the  apostle,  How  can  they  believe  with- 
out A  PREACHER  ?  should  souud  day  and  night  in  the  ears  of  the 
churches,  vs.  14,  15. 

5.  "How  can  they  preach  except  they  be  sent?"  The 
failure  of  the  whole  must  result  from  the  failure  of  any  one  of 
the  parts  of  the  system  of  means.  How  long,  alas !  has  the 
failure  been  in  the  very  first  step.  Preachers  have  not  been 
sent,  and  if  not  sent,  how  could  men  hear,  believe,  or  call  upon 
God?  vs.  14,  15. 

6.  If  "faith  comes  by  hearing,"  how  great  is  the  value  of  a 
stated  ministry !  How  obvious  the  duty  to  establish,  sustain, 
and  attend  upon  it !  ver.  17. 

7.  The  gospel's  want  of  success,  or  the  fact  that  few  believe 
our  report,  is  only  a  reason  for  its  wider  extension.  The  more 
who  hear,  the  more  will  be  saved,  even  should  it  be  but  a  small 
proportion  of  the  whole,  ver.  16. 

8.  How  delightful  will  be  the  time  when  literally  the  sound 
of  the  gospel  shall  be  as  extensively  diffused  as  the  declaration 
which  the  heavens,  in  their  circuit,  make  of  the  glory  of  God ! 
ver.  18. 

9.  The  blessings  of  a  covenant  relation  to  God  are  the  un- 
alienable right  of  no  people  and  of  no  church,  but  can  be  pre- 
served only  by  fidelity  on  the  part  of  men  to  the  covenant 
itself,  ver.  19. 

10.  God  is  often  found  by  those  who  apparently  are  the 


554  ROMANS  XI. 

farthest  from  him,  while  he  remains  undiscovered  by  those  who 
think  themselves  always  in  his  presence,  ver.  20. 

11.  God's  dealings,  even  with  reprobate  sinners,  are  full  of 
tenderness  and  compassion.  All  the  day  long  he  extends  the 
arms  of  his  mercy,  even  to  the  disobedient  and  the  gainsaying. 
This  will  be  felt  and  acknowledged  at  last  by  all  who  perish,  to 
the  glory  of  God's  forbearance,  and  to  their  own  confusion  and 
self-condemnation,  ver.  21. 

12.  Communities  and  individuals  should  beware  how  they 
slight  the  mercies  of  God,  and  especially  how  they  turn  a  deaf 
ear  to  the  invitations  of  the  gospel.  Eor  when  the  blessings 
of  a  church  relation  have  once  been  withdrawn  from  a  people, 
they  are  long  in  being  restored.  Witness  the  Jewish  and  the 
fallen  Christian  churches.  And  when  God  ceases  to  urge 
on  the  disobedient  sinner  the  offers  of  mercy,  his  destiny  is 
sealed,  v.  21. 


CHAPTEE    XI. 


CONTENTS. 


This  chapter  consists  of  two  parts,  vs.  1 — 10,  and  11 — 36. 
In  the  former  the  apostle  teaches  that  the  rejection  of  the  Jews 
was  not  total.  There  was  a  remnant,  and  perhaps  a  much 
larger  remnant  than  many  might  suppose,  excepted,  although 
the  mass  of  the  nation,  agreeably  to  the  predictions  of  the 
prophets,  was  cast  off,  vs.  1 — 10.  In  the  latter,  he  shows  that 
this  rejection  is  not  final.  In  the  first  place,  the  restoration  of 
the  Jews  is  a  desirable  and  probable  event,  vs.  11 — 24.  In  the 
second,  it  is  one  which  God  has  determined  to  bring  to  pass, 
vs.  25 — 32.  The  chapter  closes  with  a  sublime  declaration  of 
the  unsearchable  wisdom  of  God,  manifested  in  all  his  dealings 
with  men,  vs.  33 — 36.  In  the  consideration  of  the  great  doc- 
trinal truths  taught  in  this  chapter,  Paul  intersperses  many 
practical  remarks,  designed  to  give  these  truths  their  proper 
influence  both  on  the  Jews  and  Gentiles,  especially  the  latter. 


ROMANS  XL  1—10.  655 

ROMANS   XI.  1—10. 

ANALYSIS. 

The  rejection  of  the  Jews  is  not  total,  as  is  sufficiently  mani- 
fest from  the  example  of  the  apostle  himself,  to  say  nothing  of 
others,  ver.  1.  God  had  reserved  a  remnant  faithful  to  him- 
self, as  was  the  case  in  the  times  of  Elias,  vs.  2 — 4.  That  this 
remnant  is  saved,  is  a  matter  entirely  of  grace,  vs.  6,  6.  The 
real  truth  of  the  case  is,  that  Israel,  as  a  nation,  is  excluded 
from  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  but  the  chosen  ones  are  admitted 
to  its  blessings,  ver.  7.  This  rejection  of  the  greater  part  of 
the  Jews,  their  own  Scriptures  had  predicted,  vs.  8 — 10. 

COMMENTARY. 

Verse  1.  I  say,  then,  Xeyco  ouv,  I  ash,  then,  i.  e.,  Is  it  to  be 
inferred  from  what  I  have  said,  that  God  hath  rejected  his 
people  ?  When  we  consider  how  many  promises  are  made  to 
the  Jewish  nation,  as  God's  peculiar  people ;  and  how  often  it 
is  said,  as  in  Psalm  xciv.  14,  "  The  Lord  will  not  cast  off  his 
people,"  it  is  not  surprising  that  the  doctrine  of  the  rejection 
of  the  Jews,  as  taught  in  the  preceding  chapters,  was  regarded 
as  inconsistent  with  the  word  of  God.  Paul  removes  this  diffi- 
culty, first  by  showing  that  the  rejection  of  the  Jews  was 
neither  total  nor  final;  and  secondly,  by  proving  that  the 
promises  in  question  had  reference,  not  to  the  Jewish  nation  as 
such,  but  to  the  elect,  or,  the  spiritual  Israel.  The  word 
dnwaaxo  stands  at  the  beginning  of  the  sentence,  to  show  that 
it  is  emphatic.  Has  God  utterly  (i.  e.,  totally  and  finally) 
rejected  his  people?  This  Paul  denies.  He  had  not  asserted 
any  thing  of  the  kind.  The  rejection  of  the  Jews  as  a  nation, 
was  consistent  with  all  that  God  had  promised  to  their  fathers. 
Those  promises  did  not  secure  the  salvation  of  all  Jews,  or 
of  the  Jews  as  a  nation.  And  the  doctrine  which  he  had 
inculcated  did  not  involve  the  rejection  of  all  Jews.  In  proof, 
he  adds,  For  I  also  am  an  Israelite.  Paul  had  not  taught  his 
own  rejection.     The  fact  that  he  claimed  for  himself,  and  for 


556  ROMANS  XI.  2. 

all  who  with  him  believed  on  Christ,  a  part  in  the  Messiah's 
kingdom,  made  it  clear  that  he  did  not  teach  the  rejection  of 
all  Israel.  De  Wette,  and  Meyer,  in  opposition  to  almost 
common  consent,  give  a  different  view  of  the  apostle's  language. 
They  understand  him  as  repudiating  the  idea  of  the  univer- 
sal rejection  of  the  Jews,  as  inconsistent  with  his  patriotic 
feeling.  For  I  also  am  an  Israelite.  How,  can  a  Jew  believe 
that  God  has  cast  off  his  people  ?  But  the  context  is  clearly  in 
favour  of  the  common  interpretation.  The  apostle  goes  on  to 
show  that  a  general  apostacy  did  not  involve  an  entire  rejec- 
tion. The  nation,  as  a  nation,  had  before  turned  to  idols,  and 
yet  a  remnant  had  remained  faithful.  And  so  it  was  now. 
Of  the  seed  of  Abraham,  and  of  the  tribe  of  Benjamin,  see 
Phil.  iii.  5.  Paul  was  a  Jew  by  descent  from  Abraham,  and 
not  merely  a  proselyte ;  and  he  was  of  one  of  the  most  favoured 
tribes.  Judah  and  Benjamin,  especially  after  the  exile,  were 
the  chief  representatives  of  the  theocratical  people. 

Verse  2.  G-od  hath  not  cast  away  his  people  which  he  fore- 
knew. This  verse  admits  of  two  interpretations.  The  words 
his  people,  may  be  understood,  as  in  the  preceding  verse,  as 
meaning  the  Jewish  nation,  and  the  clause  which  he  foreknew, 
as,  by  implication,  assigning  the  reason  for  the  declaration  that 
God  had  not  cast  them  off.  The  clause,  according  to  this  view, 
is  little  more  than  a  repetition  of  the  sentiment  of  the  preceding 
verse.  '  It  is  not  to  be  inferred  from  what  I  have  said  of  the 
rejection  of  the  Jews,  that  God  has  cast  away  all  his  chosen 
people.  Multitudes  are  excepted  now,  as  in  the  days  of  Elias.' 
The  second  interpretation  requires  more  stress  to  be  laid  upon 
the  words  which  he  foreknew,  as  qualifying  and  distinguishing 
the  preceding  phrase,  his  people.  '  God  has  indeed  rejected  his 
external  people,  the  Jewish  nation  as  such,  but  he  has  not  cast 
away  his  people  whom  he  foreknew.'  According  to  this  view, 
his  people  means  his  elect,  his  spiritual  people,  or  the  true 
Israel.  This  interpretation  seems  decidedly  preferable,  1.  Be- 
cause it  is  precisely  the  distinction  which  Paul  had  made,  and 
made  for  the  same  purpose,  in  chap.  ix.  6 — 8,  '  The  rejection  of 
the  external  Israel  does  not  invalidate  the  promises  of  God, 
because  those  promises  did  not  contemplate  the  natural  seed  as 
such,  but  the  spiritual  Israel.     So,  now,  when  I  say  that  the 


ROMANS  XI.  2.  557 

external  Israel  is  rejected,  it  does  not  imply  that  the  true  chosen 
Israel,  to  whom  the  promises  pertained,  is  cast  away.'  2.  Be- 
cause this  is  apparently  Paul's  own  explanation  in  the  sequel. 
The  mass  of  the  nation  were  cast  away,  but  "a  remnant, 
according  to  the  election  of  grace,"  were  reserved,  ver.  5. 
Israel,  as  such,  Paul  says  in  ver.  7,  failed  of  admission  to  the 
Messiah's  kingdom,  "but  the  election  hath  obtained  it."  It  is, 
therefore,  evident  that  the  people  which  Crod  foreknew^  and 
which  were  not  cast  off,  is  "the  remnant"  spoken  of  in  ver.  5, 
and  "the  election"  mentioned  in  ver.  7.  3,  Because  the  illus- 
tration borrowed  from  the  Old  Testament  best  suits  this  inter- 
pretation. In  the  days  of  Elias,  God  rejected  the  great  body 
of  the  people ;  but  reserved  to  himself  a  remnant,  chosen  in 
sovereign  grace.  The  distinction,  therefore,  in  both  cases,  is 
between  the  external  and  the  chosen  people. 

Wliich  he  foreknew.  On  the  different  senses  of  the  word 
rendered  he  foreknew^  see  chap.  viii.  29.  Compare  Rom.  vii. 
15,  2  Tim.  ii.  19,  1  Cor.  viii.  3,  Gal.  iv.  9,  Prov.  xii.  10, 
Ps.  ci.  4,  1  Thess.  v.  12,  Matt.  vii.  32.  In  foreknowledge,  as 
thus  used,  is  involved  something  more  than  simple  prescience, 
of  which  all  persons  and  all  events  are  the  objects.  The 
people  whom  God  foreknew,  were  a  people  distinguished  by 
that  foreknowledge  from  all  other  people.  All  are  not  Israel 
who  are  of  Israel.  God  knows  those  who  are  his,  and  in  the 
midst  of  general  apostacy,  preserves  and  saves  those  whom  he 
thus  foreknows  as  his  own.  Even  Luther  gives  this  view  of 
the  passage.  "Es  ist  nicht  alles  Gottes  volk,  was  Gottes  volk 
heisset;  darum  wird  nicht  alles  verstossen,  ob  der  mehere 
Theil  auch  verstossen  wird."  And  Olshausen  says,  "Vom  ^icht- 
baren  geht  er  aber  weiter,  auf  den  unsichtbaren  Kern  des 
volkes  Gottes  iiber.  .  .  .  Offenbar  kann  Paulus  hier  nicht  von 
bloss  die  zur  Kirche  Ubergetretenen  Juden  meinen,  die  waren 
kenntlich,  sondern  die  jedem  menschlichen  Auge  unbekannten, 
die  den  verborgenen  Schatz  der  Treue  und  Aufrichtigkeit  ibnen 
selbet  unbewusst  im  Herzen  trugen.  Diese  verhalten  sich  zur 
Masse  des  Volks,  wie  im  Individuum  die  Reste  des  gottlichen 
Ebenbildes  zum  alten  Menschen ;  oder  wie  im  wiedergebornen 
der  unentwickelte,  oft  von  der  SUnde  zuriickgedrangte  neuo 
Mensch  zu  dem  ihm  umgebenden  sundlichen  Menschen.     Wie 


558  ROMANS  XI.  3,  4. 

dieser  sterben  muss,  damit  jener  herrsche,  so  muss  auch  das 
'Atlixfia  frei  gemacht  werden  von  der  fremden  Schale,  in  der  er 
wohnt,  um  sich  ausbreiten  zu  konnen.  Immer  ist  es  daa 
eigentliche  Volk  (9,  6  jQF.)  auf  das  alle  Verheisungen  gehen,  •wie 
der  unscheinbare  neue  Mensch  in  dem  ungeschlachtigen  alten 
Menschen  allein  der  wahre  Mensch  ist." 

Wot  ye  not  what  the  Scripture  saith  of  Eliasf  iv  'HXca,  in 
Elias,  i.  e.,  in  the  section  which  treats  of  Elias,  or  which  is 
designated  by  his  name.  Another  example  of  this  method  of 
referring  to  Scripture  is  found  in  Mark  xii.  26,  "  In  the  bush 
God  spake  unto  him;"  i.  e.,  in  the  section  which  treats  of  the 
burning  bush.  This  method  of  quotation  is  common  with  the 
Rabbins,  Surenh.  p.  493,  and  occurs  in  the  classic  writers. 
How  he  maheth  intercession  to  Crod  against  Israel;  evruy' 
ydvttv  means  to  approach  or  draw  near  to  any  one,  either  bnkp^ 
in  behalf  of  or  xazd,  against.  The  latter  form  occurs  here 
and  in  1  Mace.  x.  60. 

Verse  3.  Lord,  they  have  Jcilled  thy  prophets,  and  digged 
down  thine  altars,  and  I  am  left  alone,  kc.  1  Kings  xix.  10. 
Paul  gives  the  sense,  and  nearly  the  words  of  the  original.  The 
event  referred  to  was  the  great  defection  from  the  true  religion, 
and  the  murder  of  the  prophets  of  God,  under  the  reign  of 
Ahab.  The  point  of  the  analogy  to  which  the  apostle  refers, 
is,  that  although  then,  as  now,  the  defection  was  apparently 
entire,  yet  many  unknown  of  men  remained  faithful,  and  escaped 
the  doom  visited  on  the  nation  as  such.  As  the  law  allowed 
only  one  altar,  and  that  at  Jerusalem,  it  has  been  asked,  How 
the  prophet  could  speak  of  digging  down  the  altars  of  God,  as 
though  there  were  many  ?  To  this  it  is  commonly  answered, 
that  the  probability  is,  that  after  the  defection  of  the  ten 
tribes,  many  altars  to  the  true  God  were  erected  in  secret 
places,  by  those  who  adhered  to  the  religion  of  their  fathers, 
and  which,  as  access  to  Jerusalem  was  impossible,  were 
then  tolerated  by  the  prophets,  and  the  destruction  of  which, 
out  of  hatred  to  the  true  religion,  was  evidence  of  apostacy 
from  God. 

Verse  4.  But  what  saith  the  answer  of  Grod  unto  him  ?  I 
have  reserved  to  myself  seven  thousand  men,  &c.  1  Kings  xix. 
18.     Here  again  the  apostle  gives  the  sense  of  the  original. 


ROMANS  XI   5.  m 

with  slight  variations  both  from  the  Hebrew  and  Greek.     In 
the  LXX.,  the  future  xaraltitpo)  is  used  where  Paul  has  the 
aorist,   xareXcnzov.     Paul   also  inserts   the    pronoun    (hfiaoTU)), 
which  is  neither  in  the  Greek  nor  Hebrew.     "  I  have  reserved 
for  myself;"  i.  e.,  as  my  own  peculiar  people.     In  Kings,  God 
threatens  the  general  destruction  of  the  people,  but  promises  to 
reserve  seven  thousand,  who  had  not  gone  after  false  gods.    No 
special  stress  is  to  be  laid  on  the  number  seven,  as  the  whole 
design  of  the  apostle  is  to  show  that  national  destruction  does 
not  involve  the  destruction  of  the  true  people  of  God.     He 
always   has   an   invisible  church  within  the  visible;    and  the 
destruction  or  dispersion  of  the  latter  does  not  affect  the  for- 
mer.    Answer  of  God,  "^prjfiarcafio^,  divine  response,  or  oracle. 
The  verb  ipriimziC^co  occurs  in  Heb.  xii.  25,  xi.  7,  Matt.  ii.  12, 
Luke  ii.  26,  Acts  x.  22.     Those  who  remained  faithful  in  the 
time  of  Elias,  were  those  who  had  not  bowed  the  knee  to  Baal. 
Baal  signifies  lord,  ruler,  and  is  used  as  the  designation  of  a 
Phoenician  deity.     Among  the  Chaldeans  he  was  called  Bel,  or 
Belus.     He  was  regarded  as  the  generative,  controlling  princi- 
ple, of  which  the  sun  or  the  planet  of  Jupiter  was  the  symbol, 
and  to  the  people  the  direct  object  of  worship.     With  him  was 
associated  a  female  deity,  Ashtaroth,  the  Greek  Astarte,  called 
queen  of  heaven,  the  moon.     But  as  Baal  was  also  associated 
with  the  planet  Jupiter,  so  was  Ashtaroth  with  Venus.     In  this 
passage   the   feminine  article  is  used  before   Baal,   r^  BdaX. 
This  is  explained  by  our  interpreters,  by  supposing  that  dxovc, 
image,  is  omitted.     But  this  is  unsatisfactory,  not  only  because 
if  such  ellipsis  occurred,  the  expression  would  properly  be,  z^ 
zoo  BdaX ;  but  also  because  in  the  LXX.  and  the  Apocrypha, 
Baal  has  repeatedly  the  feminine  article.    Zeph.  i.  4,  Hos.  ii.  8, 
1  Sam.  vii.  4.     Some  say  this  is  done  in  the  way  of  contempt, 
as  with  the  Rabbins  the  feminine  form  is  sometimes  thus  used. 
There  is,  however,  no  special  indication  of  any  such  purpose  in 
those  cases  where  the  feminine  article  occurs.     It  is  more  satis- 
factory to  asume  that,  at  least  with  the  later  Hebrews,  both  the 
active  generative  principle  in  nature,  and  the  passive,  or  birth- 
giving  principle,  was  expressed  by  the  same  word ;  so  that  Baal 
was  really  androgyne,  both  male  and  female. 

Verse  5.     Uven  so  then  at  this  present  time  also  there  is  a 


560  ROMANS  XI.  6. 

remnant  according  to  the  election  of  grace.  As  in  the  days  of 
Elias,  there  was  a  number  which,  although  small  in  comparison 
with  the  whole  nation,  was  still  much  greater  than  appeared  to 
human  eyes  who  remained  faithful,  so  at  the  present  time, 
amidst  the  general  defection  of  the  Jews,  and  their  consequent 
rejection  as  a  people,  there  is  a  remnant,  {X€iix[xa,  what  is  leftj 
answering  to  xareXcTiov  in  ver.  4,)  according  to  the  election  of 
grace;  that  is,  graciously  chosen.  The  election  was  gracious, 
not  merely  in  the  sense  of  hind^  but  gratuitous,  sovereign,  not 
founded  on  the  merits  of  the  persons  chosen,  but  the  good 
pleasure  of  God.  This  explanation  of  the  term  is  given  by  the 
apostle  himself  in  the  next  verse.  Remnant  according  to  the 
gracious  election  is  equivalent  to  remnant  gratuitously  chosen; 
see  chap.  ix.  11,  and  vs.  21,  24  of  this  chapter.  Paul,  there- 
fore, designs  to  teach  that  the  rejection  of  the  Jews  was  not 
total,  because  there  was  a  number  whom  God  had  chosen,  who 
remained  faithful,  and  constituted  the  true  Israel  or  elected 
people,  to  whom  the  promises  were  made.  As  in  the  days  of 
Elias,  the  number  of  those  who  had  not  bowed  the  knee  to 
Baal  was  far  greater  than  the  prophet  believed  it  to  be,  so  the 
number  of  those  who  acknowledged  Christ  as  the  Messiah,  in 
the  times  of  the  apostle,  was  much  larger  probably  than  is 
generally  supposed.  The  apostle  James  speaks  of  many 
myriads  {jtbam  fxoptdde^),  Acts  xxi.  20,  of  believing  Jews. 

Verse  6.  And  if  hy  grace,  then  it  is  no  more  of  works; 
otherivise  grace  is  no  more  grace.  This  verse  is  an  exegetical 
comment  on  the  last  clause  of  the  preceding  one.  If  the  elec- 
tion spoken  of  be  of  grace,  it  is  not  founded  on  works,  for  the 
two  things  are  incompatible.  It  evidently  was,  in  the  apostle's 
view,  a  matter  of  importance  that  the  entire  freeness  of  the 
election  of  men  to  the  enjoyment  of  the  blessings  of  the  Mes- 
siah's kingdom,  should  be  steadily  kept  in  view.  He  would 
not  otherwise  have  stopped  in  the  midst  of  his  discourse  to 
insist  so  much  on  this  idea.  This  verse  serves  to  illustrate 
several  declarations  of  the  apostle  in  the  preceding  chapter. 
For  example,  ver.  11,  in  which,  as  here,  men  are  said  to  be 
chosen  in  a  sovereign  manner,  and  not  according  to  their 
works.  It  is  obvious  iha,i  foreseen  works  are  as  much  excluded 
as  any  other.     For  a  choice  founded  upon  the  foresight  of  good 


ROMANS  XI.  7.  561 

works,  is  as  really  made  on  account  of  works  as  any  choice  can 
be,  and,  consequently,  is  not  of  grace,  in  the  sense  asserted  by 
the  apostle.  In  the  second  place,  the  choice  which  is  here 
declared  to  be  so  entirely  gratuitous,  is  a  choice  to  the  kingdom 
of  Christ.  This  is  evident  from  the  whole  context,  and  espe- 
cially from  ver.  7.  It  was  from  this  kingdom  and  all  its  spirit- 
ual and  eternal  blessings  that  the  Jews,  as  a  body,  were  reject- 
ed, and  to  which  "the  remnant  according  to  the  election  of 
grace"  was  admitted.  The  election,  therefore,  spoken  of  in  the 
ninth  chapter,  is  not  to  external  privileges  merely. 

The  latter  part  of  this  verse  is  simply  the  converse  of  the 
former.  But  if  of  works,  then  it  is  no  more  grace ;  otherwise 
work  is  no  more  work.  If  founded  on  any  thing  in  us,  it  is  not 
founded  on  the  mere  good  pleasure  of  God.  If  the  one  be 
affirmed,  the  other  is  denied.  This  clause  is  omitted  in  the 
uncial  MSS.  A.  C.  D.  E.  F.  G.,  and  in  several  of  the  ancient 
versions,  and  by  all  the  Latin  fathers.  On  these  grounds  it  is 
rejected  as  a  gloss  by  Erasmus,  Grotius,  Wetstein,  Griesbach, 
and  the  later  editors.  It  is  found,  however,  in  the  MS.  B., 
and  in  the  Syriac  version,  both  of  which  are  important  author- 
ities, and  is  retained  by  Beza  and  Bengel,  and  defended  by 
Fritzsche,  Tholuck,  and  others.  The  internal  evidence,  and  a 
comparison  with  similar  passages,  as  Rom.  iv.  4,  Eph.  ii.  8,  9, 
are  in  its  favour. 

Verse  7.  Wliat  then  ?  Israel  hath  not  obtained  that  which 
he  seeketh  for :  hut  the  election  hath  obtained  it,  &c.  Seeketh, 
iTii^r^Tsl  expresses  earnest  seeking,  and  the  use  of  the  present 
tense  indicates  the  persistency  of  the  search.  The  Jews  zeal- 
ous and  perseveringly  sought  after  righteousness.  They  failed, 
however,  as  the  apostle  says,  because  they  sought  it  by  works. 
This  verse  is  by  many  pointed  differently,  and  read  thus, 
"  What  then  ?  Hath  not  Israel  obtained  that  which  he  seek- 
eth for?  nat/,  but  the  election  have,"  &c.  The  sense  is  not 
materially  different.  The  apostle  evidently  designs  to  state 
the  result  of  all  he  had  just  been  saying.  Israel,  as  a  body, 
have  not  attained  the  blessing  which  they  sought,  but  the 
chosen  portion  of  them  have.  The  rejection,  therefore,  is  not 
total,  and  the  promises  of  God  made  of  old  to  Israel,  which 
contemplated  his  spiritual  people,  have  not  been  broken.  It  is 
36 


562  ROMANS  XI.  8. 

clear,  from  the  whole  discourse,  that  the  blessing  sought  by  the 
Jews  was  justification,  acceptance  with  God,  and  admission  into 
his  kingdom ;  see  chap.  x.  3,  ix.  30,  31.  This  it  is  which  they 
failed  to  attain,  and  to  which  the  election  were  admitted.  It 
was  not,  therefore,  external  advantages  merely  which  the 
apostle  had  in  view.  'The  election  means  those  elected;  as  the 
circumcision  means  those  who  are  circumcised.  The  election, 
i.  e.,  reliquiae  ejus  populi,  quas  per  gratiam  suam  Deus 
eligit. 

And  the  rest  were  blinded.  The  verb  {knoypayd-yjaav)  rendered 
were  blinded,  properly  means  in  its  ground  form,  to  harden,  to 
render  insensible,  and  is  so  translated  in  our  version,  Mark  vi. 
52,  viii.  17,  John  xii.  40.  In  2  Cor.  iii.  14,  the  only  other 
place  in  which  it  occurs  in  the  New  Testament,  it  is  rendered  as 
it  is  here.  It  is  used  in  reference  to  the  eyes  in  the  Septuagint, 
Job  xvii.  7,  "My  eyes  are  dim  by  reason  of  sorrow."  Either 
rendering,  therefore,  is  admissible,  though  the  former  is  pre- 
ferable, as  more  in  accordance  with  the  usual  meaning  of  the 
word,  and  with  Paul's  language  in  the  previous  chapters.  And 
the  rest  were  hardened,  that  is,  were  insensible  to  the  truth  and 
excellence  of  the  gospel,  and,  therefore,  disregarded  its  offers 
and  its  claims.  This  Ttcopcoaei;  affected  the  understanding  as 
well  as  the  heart.  It  was  both  blindness  and  obduracy.  The 
passive  form  here  used,  may  express  simply  the  idea  that  they 
became  hard,  or  the  reference  may  be  to  the  judicial  act  of  God, 
see  ix.  18.  They  were  hardened  by  God,  i.  e.,  abandoned  by 
him  to  the  hardness  of  their  own  hearts. 

Verse  8.  According  as  it  is  written,  Grod  hath  given  them 
the  spirit  of  slumber,  eyes  that  they  should  not  see,  ears  that  they 
should  not  hear.  This  passage,  as  is  the  case  with  ix.  33,  is 
composed  of  several  passages  found  in  the  Old  Testament.  In 
Isa.  vi.  9,  it  is  said,  "  Hear  ye  indeed,  but  understand  not ;  see 
ye  indeed,  but  perceive  not;"  ver.  10,  "Lest  they  see  with 
their  eyes,  and  hear  with  their  ears."  Deut.  xxix.  4,  "Yet 
the  Lord  hath  not  given  you  an  heart  to  perceive,  and  eyes  to 
see,  and  ears  to  hear,  unto  this  day."  Isa.  xxix.  10,  "For  the 
Lord  hath  poured  upon  you  the  spirit  of  deep  sleep,  and  hath 
closed  your  eyes."  The  spirit,  and  to  some  extent,  the 
language  of  these  passages,  Paul  cites  in  support  of  his  argu- 


ROMANS  XI.  9,  10.  563 

ment.  They  are  in  part  descriptive  of  what  had  occurred  in 
the  times  of  the  prophets,  and  in  part  prophetic  of  what  should 
hereafter  occur,  and  are  therefore  applicable  to  the  character 
and  conduct  of  the  Jews  during  the  apostolic  age.  See  Matt. 
xiii.,  xiv.  The  design  of  such  citations  frequently  is  to  show 
that  what  was  fulfilled  partially  in  former  times,  was  more  per- 
fectly accomplished  at  a  subsequent  period.  The  Jews  had 
often  before  been  hardened,  but  at  no  former  period  were  the 
people  so  blinded,  hardened,  and  reprobate,  as  when  they 
rejected  the  Son  of  God,  and  put  him  to  an  open  shame.  Jt 
had  often  been  predicted  that  such  should  be  their  state  when 
the  Messiah  came.  The  punitive  character  of  the  evils  here 
threatened,  cannot  escape  the  reader's  notice.  This  blindness 
and  hardness  were  not  mere  calamities,  nor  were  they  simply 
the  natural  effects  of  the  sins  of  the  people.  They  were  puni- 
tive inflictions.  They  are  so  denounced.  God  says,  I  wiU 
give  you  eyes  that  see  not.  It  is  a  dreadful  thing  to  fall  into 
the  hands  of  the  living  God.  The  strokes  of  his  justice  blind, 
bewilder,  and  harden  the  soul.  The  words  even  unto  this  day, 
may,  as  by  our  translators,  be  connected  with  the  last  words 
of  the  preceding  verse,  '  The  rest  were  blinded  even  unto  this 
day.'  Or  they  may  be  considered  as  a  part  of  the  quotation, 
as  they  occur  in  Deut.  xxix.  4. 

Verses  9,  10.  And  David  saith,  Let  their  table  he  made  a 
snare,  and  a  trap,  &c.  This  Psalm  (Ixix.)  is  referred  to  David 
in  the  heading  prefixed  to  it,  and  the  propriety  of  the  reference 
to  him  as  its  author  is  confirmed  both  by  external  and  internal 
evidence.  See  ITengstenb erg's  Commentary  on  the  Psalms. 
No  portion  of  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  is  more  frequently 
referred  to,  as  descriptive  of  our  Lord's  sufferings,  than  the 
Psalms  Ixix.  and  xxii.  There  is  nothing  in  this  Psalm  which 
forbids  its  being  considered  as  a  prophetic  lamentation  of  the 
Messiah  over  his  afilictions,  and  a  denunciation  of  God's  judg- 
ments upon  his  enemies.  Verse  9,  "  The  zeal  of  thy  house 
hath  eaten  me  up,"  and  ver.  21,  "They  gave  me  vinegar  to 
drink,"  are  elsewhere  quoted  and  applied  to  Christ.  Viewed 
in  this  light,  the  Psalm  is  directly  applicable  to  the  apostle's 
object,  as  it  contains  a  prediction  of  the  judgments  which  should 
befall  the  enemies  of  Christ.    Let  their  table  be,  is  only  another 


564  ROMANS  XL  1—10. 

and  a  more  forcible  way  of  saying,  their  table  shall  he.  Isa. 
xlvii.  5,  "Sit  thou  silent,  and  get  thee  into  darkness,  0 
daughter  of  the  Chaldeans,"  for  'Thou  shalt  sit,  &c.'  And 
so  in  a  multitude  of  cases  in  the  prophetic  writings.  In  the 
Psalm,  indeed,  the  future  form  in  the  Hebrew  is  used,  though 
it  is  correctly  rendered  by  the  Septuagint  and  in  our  version 
as  the  imperative,  in  these  passages.  The  judgments  here  de- 
nounced are  expressed  in  figurative  language.  The  sense  is, 
their  blessings  shall  become  a  curse ;  blindness  and  weakness, 
hardness  of  heart  and  misery  shall  come  upon  them.  This  last 
idea  is  forcibly  expressed  by  a  reference  to  the  dimness  of 
vision,  and  decrepitude  of  old  age ;  as  the  vigour  and  activity 
of  youth  are  the  common  figure  for  expressing  the  results  of 
God's  favour. 

Even  if  the  Psalm  here  quoted  be  considered  as  referring 
to  the  sorrows  and  the  enemies  of  the  sacred  writer  himself, 
and  not  to  those  of  Christ,  it  would  still  be  pertinent  to  the 
apostle's  object.  The  enemies  of  the  Psalmist  were  the 
enemies  of  God ;  the  evils  imprecated  upon  them  were  impre- 
cated on  them  as  such,  and  not  as  enemies  of  the  writer.  These 
denunciations  are  not  the  expression  of  the  desire  of  private 
revenge,  but  of  the  just  and  certain  judgments  of  God.  And 
as  the  Psalmist  declared  how  the  enemies  of  God  should  be 
treated,  how  dim  their  eyes  should  become,  and  how  their 
strength  should  be  broken,  so,  Paul  says,  it  actually  occurs. 
David  said,  let  them  be  so  treated,  and  we  find  them,  says  the 
apostle,  suffering  these  very  judgments.  Paul,  therefore,  in 
teaching  that  the  great  body  of  the  Jews,  the  rejectors  and 
crucifiers  of  the  Son  of  God,  were  blinded  and  cast  away,  taught 
nothing  more  than  had  already  been  experienced  in  various 
portions  of  their  history,  and  predicted  in  their  prophets. 

DOCTRINE. 

1.  The  gifts  and  calling  of  God  are  without  repentance. 
The  people  whom  God  had  chosen  for  himself,  he  preserved 
amidst  the  general  defection  of  their  countrymen,  vs.  1,  2. 

2.  The  apparent  apostacy  of  a  church  or  community  from 
God,  is  not  a  certain  test  of  the  character  of  all  the  individuals 
of  which  it  may  be  composed.      In  the  midst  of  idolatrous 


ROMANS  XI.  1—10.  565 

Israel,  there  were  many  who  had  not  bowed  the  knee  unto 
Baal.  Denunciations,  therefore,  should  not  be  made  too 
general,  vs.  2 — 4. 

3.  The  fidelity  of  men  in  times  of  general  declension  is  not 
to  be  ascribed  to  themselves,  but  to  the  grace  of  God.  Every 
remnant  of  faithful  men,  is  a  remnant  according  to  the  election 
of  grace.  That  is,  they  are  faithful,  because  graciously  elected, 
ver.  5. 

4.  Election  is  not  founded  on  works,  nor  on  any  thing  in  its 
objects,  but  on  the  sovereign  pleasure  of  God;  and  it  is  not  to 
church  privileges  merely,  but  to  all  the  blessings  of  Christ's 
kingdom,  vs.  6,  7. 

5.  It  is  not  of  him  that  willeth  nor  of  him  that  runneth. 
Israel,  with  all  their  zeal  for  the  attainment  of  salvation,  were 
not  successful,  while  those  whom  God  had  chosen  attained  the 
blessing,  ver.  7. 

6.  Those  who  forsake  God,  are  forsaken  by  God.  In 
leaving  him,  they  leave  the  source  of  light,  feeling,  and  happi- 
ness, ver.  7. 

7.  When  men  are  forsaken  of  God  all  their  powers  are  use- 
less, and  all  their  blessings  become  curses.  Having  eyes,  they 
see  not,  and  their  table  is  a  snare,  vs.  8 — 10. 

REMARKS. 

1.  As  in  the  times  of  the  greatest  defection,  there  are  some 
who  remain  faithful,  and  as  in  the  midst  of  apparently  apostate 
communities,  there  are  some  who  retain  their  integrity,  we 
should  never  despair  of  the  church,  nor  be  too  ready  to  make 
intercession  against  Israel.  The  foundation  of  God  standeth 
sure,  having  this  seal.  The  Lord  knoweth  them  that  are  his, 
vs.  1 — 4. 

2.  Those  only  are  safe  whom  the  Lord  keeps.  Those  who 
do  not  bow  the  knee  to  Baal,  are  a  remnant  according  to  the 
election  of  grace,  and  not  according  to  the  firmness  of  their 
own  purposes,  vs.  5,  6. 

3.  All  seeking  after  salvation  is  worse  than  useless,  unless 
properly  directed.  Those  who  are  endeavouring  to  work  out  a 
righteousness  of  their  own,  or  to  secure  the  favour  of  God  in 
any  way  by  their  own  doings,  are  beating  the  air.     Success  is 


566  ROMANS  XL  11—36. 

to  be  obtained  only  by  submission  to  the  righteousness  of  God, 
ver.  7. 

4.  As  the  fact  that  any  attain  the  blessing  of  God  is  to  be 
attributed  to  their  election,  there  is  no  room  for  self-compla- 
cency or  pride ;  and  where  these  feelings  exist  and  are  cher- 
ished in  reference  to  this  subject,  they  are  evidence  that  we  are 
not  of  the  number  of  God's  chosen,  ver.  7. 

5.  Men  should  feel  and  acknowledge  that  they  are  in  the 
hands  of  God ;  that,  as  sinners,  they  have  forfeited  all  claim  to 
his  favour,  and  lost  the  power  to  obtain  it.  To  act  persever- 
ingly  as  though  either  of  these  truths  were  not  so,  is  to  set  our- 
selves in  opposition  to  God  and  his  plan  of  mercy,  and  is  the 
very  course  to  provoke  him  to  send  on  us  the  spirit  of  slumber. 
This  is  precisely  what  the  Jews  did,  vs.  7,  8. 

6.  Men  are  commonly  ruined  by  the  things  in  which  they 
put  their  trust  or  take  most  delight.  The  whole  Mosaic  system, 
with  its  rites  and  ceremonies,  was  the  ground  of  confidence 
and  boasting  to  the  Jews,  and  it  was  the  cause  of  their  destruc- 
tion. So,  in  our  day,  those  who  take  refuge  in  some  ecclesias- 
tical organization  instead  of  Christ,  will  find  what  they  ex- 
pected would  prove  their  salvation,  to  be  their  ruin.  So,  too, 
all  misimproved  or  perverted  blessings  are  made  the  severest 
curses,  vs.  9,  10. 


ROMANS  XI.  11—36. 

ANALYSIS. 

As  the  rejection  of  the  Jews  was  not  total,  so  neither  is  it 
final.  They  have  not  so  fallen  as  to  be  hopelessly  prostrated. 
First,  God  did  not  design  to  cast  away  his  people  entirely,  but, 
by  their  rejection,  in  the  first  place,  to  facilitate  the  progress  of 
the  gospel  among  the  Gentiles,  and  ultimately  to  make  the  con- 
version of  the  Gentiles  the  means  of  converting  the  Jews,  ver. 
11.  The  latter  event  is  in  itself  desirable  and  probable. 
1.  Because  if  the  rejection  of  the  Jews  has  been  a  source  of 
blessing,  much  more  will  their  restoration  be  the  means  of  good, 
vs.  12,  15.  (The  verses  13,  14,  are  a  passing  remark  on  the 
motive  which  influenced  the  apostle  in .  preaching  to  the  Gen- 


ROMANS  XI.  11.  567 

tiles.)  2.  Because  it  was  included  and  contemplated  in  the 
original  election  of  the  Jewish  nation.  If  the  root  be  holy,  so 
are  the  branches,  ver.  16. 

The  breaking  off  and  rejection  of  some  of  the  original 
branches,  and  the  introduction  of  others  of  a  different  origin, 
is  not  inconsistent  with  this  doctrine ;  and  should  lead  the  Gen- 
tiles to  exercise  humility  and  fear,  and  not  boasting  or  exulta- 
tion, vs.  17 — 22.  As  the  rejection  of  the  Jews  was  a  punish- 
ment of  their  unbelief,  and  not  the  expression  of  God's  ultimate 
purpose  respecting  them,  if  is,  as  intimated  in  ver.  16,  more 
probable  that  God  should  restore  the  Jews,  than  that  he  should 
have  called  the  Gentiles,  vs.  23,  24. 

This  event,  thus  desirable  and  probable,  God  has  determined 
to  accomplish,  vs.  25,  26.  The  restoration  of  the  Jews  to  the 
privileges  of  God's  people  is  included  in  the  ancient  predictions 
and  promises  made  respecting  them,  vs.  26,  27.  Though  now, 
therefore,  they  are  treated  as  enemies,  they  shall  hereafter  be 
treated  as  friends,  ver.  28.  For  the  purposes  of  God  do  not 
alter;  as  his  covenant  contemplated  the  restoration  of  his 
ancient  people,  that  event  cannot  fail  to  come  to  pass,  ver.  29. 
The  plan  of  God,  therefore,  contemplated  the  calling  of  the 
Gentiles,  the  temporary  rejection  and  final  restoration  of  the 
Jews,  vs.  30—32. 

How  adorable  the  wisdom  of  God  manifested  in  the  plan  and 
conduct  of  the  work  of  redemption  !  Of  him,  through  him,  and 
to  him,  are  all  things ;  to  whom  be  glory  for  ever.  Amen. 
vs.  33—36. 

COMMENTARY. 

Verse  11.  /  say  then,  Have  they  stumbled  that  they  should 
fall?  Grod  forbid,  &c.  This  verse  begins  with  the  same 
formula  as  the  first  verse  of  the  chapter,  and  for  the  same 
reason.  As  there  the  apostle  wished  to  have  it  understood  that 
the  rejection  of  God's  ancient  people  was  not  entire,  so  here  he 
teaches  that  this  rejection  is  not  final.  That  this  is  the  mean- 
ing of  the  verse  seems  evident,  1.  From  the  comparative  force 
of  the  words  stumble  and  fall.  As  the  latter  is  a  much  stronger 
term  than  the  former,  it  seems  plain  that  Paul  designed  it 
should  here  be  taken  emphatically,  as  expressing  irrevocable 


568  ROMANS  XI.  11. 

ruin,  in  opposition  to  that  which  is  temporary.  The  Jews  have 
stumbled,  but  they  are  not  prostrated.  2.  From  the  context ; 
all  that  follows  being  designed  to  prove  that  the  fall  of  the 
Jews  was  not  final.  This  is  indeed  intimated  in  this  very  verse, 
in  which  it  is  implied  that  the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles  would 
lead  to  the  ultimate  conversion  of  the  Jews.  The  word  [Tzeawacv) 
rendered  should  fall,  is  used  here  as  elsewhere  to  mean,  should 
perish,  become  miserable,  Heb.  iv.  11.  The  particle  Iva,  that, 
here  as  usually,  expresses  design.  Have  the  Jews  stumbled, 
in  order  that  they  should  fall  ?  There  are  two  views,  however, 
as  to  the  meaning  of  the  passage.  The  first  is  that  just  men- 
tioned, Was  it  the  design  of  God,  in  permitting  the  stumbling 
of  the  Jews,  that  they  should  finally  perish  ?  In  other  words, 
Was  their  rejection  designed  to  be  a  permanent  casting  them 
out  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ  ?  This  view  is  sustained  by  the 
whole  subsequent  discussion,  in  which  the  apostle  proves  that 
the  Jews,  as  a  nation,  are  to  be  converted.  The  other  inter- 
pretation assumes  that  the  apostle  means  to  say,  that  the 
design  of  God  in  the  rejection  of  the  Jews,  was  not  so  much 
their  punishment,  as  to  facilitate  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles. 
'  Has  God  caused  or  allowed  them  to  stumble,  for  the  sake  of 
punishing  them,  or  simply  that  they  should  fall  ?  By  no  means, 
but,'  &c.  This  interpretation,  although  it  is  suited  to  the  verse, 
considered  separately,  is  not  so  agreeable  to  the  context,  and 
the  design  of  the  apostle.  It  is  not  his  object  in  what  follows, 
to  prove  that  God  had  not  cast  off  his  people  for  the  simple 
purpose  of  causing  them  to  suffer,  but  to  show  that  their  rejec- 
tion was  not  final. 

But  through  their  fall  salvation  has  come  unto  the  Grentiles. 
The  stumbling  of  the  Jews  was  not  attended  with  the  result  of 
their  utter  and  final  ruin,  but  was  the  occasion  of  facilitating 
the  progress  of  the  gospel  among  the  Gentiles.  It  was,  there- 
there,  not  designed  to  lead  to  the  former,  but  to  the  latter 
result.  From  this  very  design  it  is  probable  that  they  shall  be 
finally  restored,  because  the  natural  effect  of  the  conversion  of 
the  Gentiles  is  to  provoke  the  emulation  of  the  Jews.  That 
the  rejection  of  the  gospel  on  the  part  of  the  Jews  was  the 
means  of  its  wider  and  more  rapid  spread  among  the  Gentiles, 
seems  to  clearly  intimated  in  several   passages  of  the  New 


ROMANS  XL  11.  569 

Testament.  "It  was  necessary,"  Paul  says  to  the  Jews,  "that 
the  word  of  God  should  first  have  been  spoken  to  you;  but 
seeing  ye  put  it  from  you,  and  judge  yourselves  unworthy  of 
eternal  life,  lo,  we  turn  to  the  Gentiles."  Acts  xiii.  46,  And 
in  Acts  xxviii.  28,  after  saying  that  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah  was 
fulfilled  in  their  unbelief,  he  adds,  "Be  it  known  therefore  unto 
you,  that  the  salvation  of  God  is  sent  unto  them."  Compare 
Isa.  xlix.  4 — 6.  The  Jews,  even  those  who  were  professors  of 
'Christianity,  were,  in  the  first  place,  very  slow  to  allow  the 
gospel  to  be  preached  to  the  Gentiles;  and  in  the  second,  they 
appear  almost  uniformly  to  have  desired  to  clog  the  gospel  with 
the  ceremonial  observances  of  the  law.  This  was  one  of  the 
greatest  hinderances  to  the  progress  of  the  cause  of  Christ 
during  the  apostolic  age,  and  would,  in  all  human  probability, 
have  been  a  thousand-fold  greater,  had  the  Jews,  as  a  nation, 
embraced  the  Christian  faith.  On  both  these  accounts,  the 
rejection  of  the  Jews  was  incidentally  a  means  of  facilitating 
the  progress  of  the  gospel.  Besides  this,  the  punishment  which 
befell  them  on  account  of  their  unbelief,  involving  the  destruc- 
tion of  their  nation  and  power,  of  course  prevented  their  being 
able  to  forbid  the  general  preaching  of  the  gospel,  which  they 
earnestly  desired  to  do.  1  Thess.  ii.  15,  16,  "They  please  not 
God,  and  are  contrary  to  all  men ;  forbidding  us  to  preach  to 
the  Gentiles,  that  they  might  be  saved." 

For  to  provoke  them  to  jealousy.  As  the  result  and  design 
of  the  rejection  of  the  Jews  was  the  salvation  of  the  Gentiles, 
so  the  conversion  of  the  latter  was  designed  to  bring  about  the 
restoration  of  the  former.  The  Gentiles  are  saved  in  order  to 
provoke  the  Jews  to  jealousy.  That  is,  this  is  one  of  the  many 
benevolent  purposes  which  God  designed  to  accomplish  by  that 
event.  This  last  clause  serves  to  explain  the  meaning  of  the 
apostle  in  the  former  part  of  the  verse.  He  shows  that  the 
rejection  of  the  Jews  was  not  intended  to  result  in  their  being 
finally  cast  away,  but  to  secure  the  more  rapid  progress  of  the 
gospel  among  the  heathen,  in  order  that  their  conversion  might 
react  upon  the  Jews,  and  be  the  means  of  bringing  all,  at  last, 
within  the  fold  of  the  Redeemer.  To  provoke  to  jealousy, 
TcapaC^rjXcoaac,  to  excite  emulation;  i.  e.,  to  stimulate  to  follow. 
The  word  is  not  to  be  taken  in  a  bad  sense,  notwithstanding 


570  ROMANS  XI.  12. 

the  Tzapd.  All  the  apostle  intended  to  say  was,  that  he  hoped 
the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles  would  be  the  means  of  exciting 
the  Jews  to  seek  salvation  in  the  gospel. 

Verse  12.  Noio,  if  the  fall  of  them  he  the  riches  of  the  world, 
and  the  diminishing  of  them  the  riches  of  the  Gf-entiles,  how 
much  more  their  fulness  ?  Although  there  is  considerable  diffi- 
culty in  fixing  the  precise  sense  of  the  several  clauses  of  this 
verse,  its  general  meaning  seems  sufficiently  obvious.  '-  If  the 
rejection  of  the  Jews  has  been  the  occasion  of  so  much  good  to' 
the  world,  how  much  more  may  be  expected  from  their  restora- 
tion?' In  this  view  it  bears  directly  upon  the  appstle's  object, 
which,  in  the  first  place,  is  to  show  that  the  restoration  of  the 
Jews  is  a  probable  and  desirable  event.  There  is  in  the  verse 
a  two-fold  annunciation  of  the  same  idea.  In  the  first,  the  sen- 
tence is  incomplete.  '  If  the  fall  of  them  be  the  riches  of  the 
world,  how  much  more  their  recovery  ?  if  their  diminishing,  how 
much  more  their  fulness  ?'  The  principal  difficulty  in  this  pas- 
sage results  from  the  ambiguity  of  the  words  {rirzr^jxa  and 
7tlrjfjo}[xa)  rendered  diminishiyig  and  fulness.  The  former  may 
mean  fewness  or  inferiority,  a  condition  worse  than  that  of 
others,  or  worse  than  a  former  one.  Those  who  adopt  the 
former  of  these  senses,  understand  the  verse  thus :  '  If  the  few 
Jews,  who  have  been  converted,  have  been  such  an  advantage 
to  the  Gentiles,  how  much  more  will  the  great  multitude  of 
them,  when. brought  to  Christ,  be  a  source  of  blessing.'  But 
to  this  interpretation  it  may  be  objected,  1.  The  word  has 
rarely,  if  ever,  the  meaning  here  assigned  to  it.  Passow  gives 
it  no  such  signification  in  his  Lexicon.  The  cognate  verb  sig- 
nifies, I  am  inferior  in  strength  or  condition  to  any  one.  2  Peter 
ii.  19,  2  Cor.  xii.  13.  The  adjective  means  inferior,  worse: 
1  Cor.  xi.  17,  "Ye  come  together  not  for  the  better,  but  for 
the  worse."  The  only  place  in  which  the  word  here  used 
occurs  elsewhere  in  the  New  Testament,  is  1  Cor.  vi.  7,  "  There 
is  utterly  a  fault  among  you,"  or  as  it  might  be  rendered,  'It 
is  an  injury  to  you.'  Such  too  is  the  meaning  of  the  word  in 
the  Old  Testament:  Isa.  xxxi.  8,  "His  young  men  shall  be 
discomfitted,"  which  expresses  the  sense  of  the  original;  and 
so  does  the  Septuagint,  which  employs  the  word  used  by  the 
apostle,  '  His  young  men  shall  be  brought  into  an  inferior  con- 


ROMANS  XL  12.  571 

dition,'  i.  e.,  shall  be  conquered.  2.  This  interpretation  does 
not  suit  the  context.  Paul  does  not  say  that  the  conversion 
of  the  few  Jews  who  had  become  Christians,  had  been  the  occa- 
sion of  good  to  the  Gentiles,  but  the  rejection  of  the  great  body 
of  the  nation.  3.  It  does  not  at  all  suit  the  first  clause  of  the 
verse.  The  fall  of  them,  answers  to  and  explains  the  diminish- 
ing of  them.  As  the  former  clause  cannot  receive  the  interpre- 
tation objected  to,  neither  can  the  latter.  Tholuck  and  others 
take  ^TTTjfia  in  a  moral  sense ;  their  fault,  so  as  to  correspond 
with  Tzapdnzafia.  But  this  would  make  the  two  clauses  of  the 
verse  tautological,  and  destroy  the  antithesis  between  y^rvTjfxa 
and  TzXripoiiia,  as  the  latter  cannot  mean,  their  goodness.  The 
sense  is  clear  and  good  if  we  give  ^Ttrjfia  its  natural  meaning ; 
their  worse  estate,  or  loss.  The  Jews  lost  their  peculiar  privi- 
leges and  blessings,  and  their  loss  was  the  riches  of  the  Gen- 
tiles. It  enriched  them  by  being  the  means  of  transferring  to 
them  the  treasures  of  the  gospel. 

The  word  TiXijpcofxa  has  various  senses  in  the  New  Testament. 
It  properly  means  that  with  which  anything  is  filled,  as  in  the 
frequent  phrase,  the  fulness  of  the  earth,  or  of  the  sea,  &c.  So 
fulness  of  the  Grodhead,  all  that  is  in  God,  the  plenitude  of 
Deity.  John  i.  16,  "Of  his  fulness  have  all  we  received;" 
Eph.  iii.  19,  "  That  ye  might  be  filled  with  all  the  fulness  of 
God."  It  also  means  the  complement  or  supplement  of  any- 
thing, the  remaining  part;  see  Matt.  ix.  16.  So  in  Eph.  i.  33, 
the  church  may  be  called  the  fulness  of  Christ,  because  he  is 
the  head,  the  church  the  residue,  or  complement,  by  which  the 
mystical  body  is  completed.  Of  these  several  meanings,  Storr 
selects  the  last,  and  explains  the  verse  thus :  '  If  the  ruin  of 
the  unbelieving  Jews  has  been  a  source  of  blessing  to  the  Gen- 
tiles, how  much  more  shall  the  remaining  portion  of  the  nation, 
i.  e.,  those  converted  to  Christianity,  be  the  means  of  good.' 
But,  1.  This  interpretation  destroys  the  obvious  antithesis  of 
the  sentence;  "the  remaining  part"  does  not  answer  to  the 
word  rendered  ruin,  as  it  obviously  should  do.  2.  It  is  not  in 
accordance  with  the  context,  which  is  not  designed  so  much  to 
set  forth  the  usefulness  of  the  Jews  then  converted,  as  to 
declare  the  blessings  likely  to  be  consequent  on  the  final  con- 
version of  the  whole  nation.    3.  A  comparison  of  this,  with  the 


572  ROMANS  XL  13. 

15th  verse,  is  unfavourable  to  this  interpretation.  These  verses 
evidently  express  the  same  idea,  and  therefore  illustrate  each 
other.  '  If  the  casting  away  of  them  be  the  occasion  of  recon- 
ciling the  world,  what  will  the  receiving  of  them  be  ?'  &c. 
Ver.  15.  Retaining  the  sense,  complement,  the  passage  admits 
of  a  different  interpretation  from  that  given  by  Storr.  The 
Jewish  nation  are  the  TtXr^pcofia,  the  complement,  that  which 
completes  the  whole  number  of  the  people  of  God.  A  rent,  or 
loss  had  occurred  by  their  rejection ;  they  were,  however,  the 
complement  by  which  that  loss  was  to  be  made  good.  "This  is 
evidently  forced. 

The  common  interpretation,  therefore,  is  to  be  preferred : 
'If  the  injury  or  ruin  of  the  Jews  has  been  the  occasion  of  good 
to  the  Gentiles,  how  much  more  shall  their  full  restoration  or 
blessedness  be?'  1.  This  agrees  with  the  antithesis,  'If  the 
fall,  then  the  recovery;  if  the  ruin,  then  the  blessedness,'  &c. 
2.  It  suits  the  context,  and  the  design  of  the  apostle.  3.  It  is 
in  strict  accordance  with  the  obviously  parallel,  passage  in  the 
15th  verse,  just  quoted.  The  remark  of  Thomas  Aquinas  is 
of  great  weight :  "Bonum  est  potentius  ad  utilitatem  inferen- 
dam,  quam  malum,  sed  malum  Judserorum  gentilibus  magnam 
utilitatem  contulit,  ergo  multo  majorem  confert  mundo  eorum 
bonum."  The  nXr^poiiia  of  the  Gentiles  is,  therefore,  that  which 
fills  them,  and  renders  their  blessedness  full.  The  word  is  thus 
retained  in  its  ordinary  sense. 

Verse  13.  I'or  I  speak  to  you  G-entiles,  inasmuch  as  I  am 
the  apostle  to  the  Cr entiles.  This  and  the  following  verse  con- 
tain a  transient  remark  relating  to  the  apostle's  own  feelings 
and  mode  of  acting  in  reference  to  the  subject  in  hand.  His 
readers  were  not  to  suppose,  that  because  he  was  the  apostle  to 
the  Gentiles,  his  labours  had  no  reference  to  the  Jews,  or  that 
he  was  unconcerned  about  their  salvation.  This  passage  is 
therefore  connected  with  the  last  clause  of  the  preceding  verse, 
in  which  Paul  had  said  that  the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles  was 
adapted  and  designed  to  bring  about  the  restoration  of  the 
Jews.  These  two  events,  instead  of  being  at  all  inconsistent, 
were  intimately  related,  so  that  both  ought  to  be  kept  con- 
stantly in  view,  and  all  efibrts  to  promote  the  former  had  a 
bearing  on  the  accomplishment  of  the  latter.     This  being  the 


ROMANS  XI.  14.  573 

case,  the  Gentiles  ought  to  consider  the  restoration  of  the  Jews 
as  in  no  respect  inimical  to  their  interests,  but  as  on  every 
account  most  desirable.     Paul  therefore  says,  that  what  he  had 
just  stated  in  reference  to  the  effect  on  the  Jews,  of  the  con- 
version of  the  Gentiles,  he  designed  specially  for  the  latter. 
He  wished  them  to  consider  that  fact,  as  it  would  prevent  any 
unkind  feelings  towards  the  Jews.     He  had  the  better  right 
thus  to  speak,  as  to  him,  especially,  "the  gospel  of  the  uncir- 
cumcision  had  been  committed."     He  himself,  in  all  he  did  to 
secure  the  salvation  of  the  Gentiles,  or  to  render  his  office  suc- 
cessful, had  an  eye  to  the  conversion  of  the  Jews.     The  word 
[do^d^co)  rendered  /  magnify,  means,  first,  to  praise,  to  estimate 
and  speak  highly  of  a  thing ;  secondly,  to  render  glorious,  as 
chap.  viii.  30,  "Whom  he  justifies,  them  he  also  glorifies;"  and 
so  in  a  multitude  of  cases.     Either  sense  of  the  word  suits  this 
passage.     The  latter,  however,  is  much  better  adapted  to  the 
following  verse,  and  therefore  is  to  be  preferred :  '  I  endeavour 
to  render  my  office  glorious  by  bringing  as  many  Gentiles  as 
possible  into  the  Redeemer's  kingdom ;  if  so  be  it  may  provoke 
and  arouse  my  countrymen.'     His  magnifying  his  office  con- 
sisted in  the  faithful  discharge  of  its  duties  ;  and  in  thus  labour- 
ing assiduously  for  the  salvation  of  the  Gentiles,  he  aimed  also 
at  the  salvation  of  the  Jews.     "Sic  gentes  alloquitur:  Quum 
sim   vobis   peculiariter   destinatus   apostolus   ideoque   salutem 
vestram  mihi  commissam  singulari  quodam  studio  debeam  pro- 
curare,  et  quasi  rebus  omnibus  omissis  unum  illud  agere :  officio 
tamen  meo  fideliter  fungar,  si  quos  e  mea  gente  Christo  lucri- 
fecero:    idque  erit  in  gloriam  ministerii  mei,   atque  adeo  in 
vestrum  bonum."  Calvin.     The  object  of  the  apostle,  therefore, 
in  these  verses,  is  to  declare  that  he  always  acted  under  the 
influence  of  the  truth  announced  at  the  close  of  the  12th  verse. 
He  endeavoured  to  make  the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles  a  means 
of  good  to  the  Jews. 

Yerse  14.  If  hy  any  means  I  may  provoke  to  emulation  them 
which  are  my  flesh,  and  might  save  some  of  them.  This  is  the 
reason  (of  course  one  among  many)  why  Paul  desired  the  con- 
version of  the  Gentiles.  If  the  two  events,  the  salvation  of 
both  classes,  were  intimately  related,  there  was  no  ground  of 
ill  feeling  on  either  part.     The  Gentiles  need  not  fear  that  the 


674  ROMANS  XL  15. 

restoration  of  the  Jews  would  be  injurious  to  them,  as  though 
the  happiness  of  one  class  were  incompatible  with  that  of  the 
other. 

Verse  15.  For  if  the  casting  away  of  them  he  the  reconciling 
of  the  world,  what  shall  the  receiving  of  them  be  hut  life  from 
the  dead  f  Although  Paul  here  returns  to  the  sentiment  of  the 
12th  verse,  this  passage  is  logically  connected  with  the  pre- 
ceding. The  apostle  had  said,  that  even  in  labouring  for  the 
Gentiles,  he  had  in  view  the  salvation  of  the  Jews ;  for  if  their 
rejection  had  occasioned  so  much  good,  how  desirable  must  be 
their  restoration.  If  the  casting  away  of  them  he  the  recon- 
ciling of  the  world.  The  reconciliation  here  spoken  of  is  that 
which  Paul  so  fully  describes  in  Eph.  ii.  11 — 22.  A  reconcilia- 
tion by  which  those  who  were  aliens  and  strangers  have  been 
brought  nigh ;  reconciled  at  once  to  the  church,  the  common- 
wealth of  Israel,  and  to  God  himself,  "by  the  blood  of  Christ." 
This  event  has  been  facilitated,  as  remarked  above,  by  the 
rejection  of  the  Jews;  what  will  the  restoration  of  the  Jews 
then  be,  hut  life  from  the  dead?  That  is,  it  will  be  a  most 
glorious  event ;  as  though  a  new  world  had  risen,  not  only  glo- 
rious in  itself,  but  in  the  highest  degree  beneficial  to  the  Gen- 
tiles. De  Brais  and  many  others  suppose  that  the  apostle 
refers  to  the  future  declension  of  the  Gentile  church,  from 
which  the  restoration  of  the  Jews  shall  be  the  means  of  arous- 
ing them.  Of  such  an  allusion,  however,  there  is  no  intimation 
in  the  text.  The  most  common  and  natural  interpretation  is 
that  which  considers  the  latter  clause  as  merely  a  figurative 
expression  of  a  joyful  and  desirable  event.  The  conversion  of 
the  Jews  will  be  attended  with  the  most  glorious  consequences 
for  the  whole  world. 

Not  only  in  the  Scriptures,  but  also  in  profane  literature,  the 
transition  from  a  state  of  depression  and  misery,  to  one  of  pros- 
perity, is  expressed  by  the  natural  figure  of  passing  from  death 
to  life.  The  Old  Testament  prophets  represented  the  glorious 
condition  of  the  theocracy,  consequent  on  the  coming  of  Christ, 
in  contrast  with  its  previous  condition,  as  a  rising  from  the 
dead.  This  interpretation  of  the  passage  before  us,  is  adopted 
by  many  of  the  best  commentators,  ancient  and  modern.  There 
are,  however,  two  other  views  presented.     According  to  some, 


ROMANS  XI.  15.  575 

the  life  here  spoken  of  is  strictly  spiritual  life,  and  the  dead 
from  which  it  springs  are  the  spiritually  dead.  The  meaning 
would  then  be,  that  the  conversion  of  the  Jews  would  be  the 
occasion,  or  the  means,  of  awakening  many  of  the  Gentiles  to 
spiritual  life.  This  idea,  however,  is  included  in  the  former 
interpretation,  because  the  summa  felicitas,  the  state  of  great 
prosperity  which  the  church  is  to  enjoy  when  the  Jews  are 
restored,  is  a  religious  prosperity.  It  supposes  the  conversion 
of  great  multitudes  of  men,  and  the  general  spread  and  power 
of  the  gospel.  But  this  does  not  justify  us  in  confining  the 
words  to  this  spiritual  sense.  The  latter  clause,  according  to 
this  view,  expresses  no  more  than  the  former  clause.  The 
reconciliation  of  the  world,  implies,  of  course,  the  conversion  of 
multitudes  of  men,  and  the  prevalence  of  true  religion.  The 
life  from  the  dead,  is  more  than  this.  It  is  not  only  a  greater 
measure  of  the  former  blessing,  but  a  glorious  and  happy  con- 
dition therewith  connected,  and  consequent  thereon.  The  other 
view  of  the  passage  is  that  given  by  Chrysostom,  and  adopted 
by  many  of  the  best  modern  commentators,  as  Tholuck  (in  his 
second  edition,)  De  Wette,  Meyer,  and  others.  It  assumes  that 
Ccorj  ix  vexpmv  {life  from  the  dead,)  refers  to  the  resurrection 
of  the  dead.  The  idea  is,  that  the  conversion  of  the  Jews  is 
the  condition  precedent  of  that  great  event.  When  the  Jews 
are  converted,  then  comes  the  resurrection  and  the  consumma- 
tion of  Christ's  kingdom.  But  nowhere  else  in  Scripture  is  the 
literal  resurrection  expressed  by  the  words  ^torj  ix  uexpcHv. 
Had  Paul  intended  a  reference  to  the  resurrection,  no  reason 
can  be  assigned  why  he  did  not  employ  the  established  and 
familiar  words,  dudazaffK;  ix  uexpcou.  If  he  meant  the  resurrec- 
tion, why  did  he  not  say  so  ?  Why  use  a  general  phrase,  which 
is  elsewhere  used  to  express  another  idea  ?  Besides  this,  it  is 
not  according  to  the  analogy  of  Scripture,  that  the  resurrection 
of  the  dead,  and  the  change  in  those  who  shall  be  then  alive, 
(1  Cor.  XV.  51,  1  Thess.  iv.  14 — 18,)  are  to  be  immediate,  con- 
sequent on  the  conversion  of  the  Jews.  The  resurrection  is 
not  to  occur  until  "the  end."  A  new  state  of  things,  a  new 
mode  of  existence  is  to  be  then  introduced.  Flesh  and  blood, 
i.  e.,  our  bodies  as  now  organized,  (the  aaipa  (poj^ixov,)  cannot 
inherit  the  kingdom  of  God.     They  are  not  suited  for  the  state 


576  ROMANS  XI.  16. 

of  being  which  is  to  follow  the  resurrection.  If,  therefore,  the 
world  is  to  continue  after  the  conversion  of  the  Jews,  that  event 
will  not  inaugurate  the  resurrection. 

Verse  16.  For  if  the  first-fruits  he  holy,  the  lump  is  also 
holy;  and  if  the  root  he  holy,  so  also  are  the  hranches.  Under 
two  striking  and  appropriate  figures,  the  apostle  expresses  the 
general  idea,  '  If  one  portion  of  the  Jewish  people  is  holy,  so 
also  is  the  other.'  With  regard  to  this  interesting  passage,  the 
first  point  to  be  settled  is  the  allusion  in  the  figurative  expres- 
sion in  the  first  clause.  The  Jews  were  commanded  to  ofier  a 
certain  portion  of  all  the  productions  of  the  earth  to  God,  as 
an  expression  of  gratitude  and  acknowledgment  of  depend- 
ence. This  offering,  called  the  first-fruits,  was  to  be  made, 
first,  from  the  productions  in  their  natural  state  (Ex.  xxiii.  19 ;) 
and,  secondly,  from  the  meal,  wine,  oil,  and  dough,  as  prepared 
for  use.  Num.  xv.  20,  "  Of  the  first  of  your  dough  ye  shall 
give  unto  the  Lord  a  heave-offering  in  all  your  generations ;" 
Neh.  X.  37,  Deut.  xviii.  14.  If  the  allusion  of  the  apostle  is 
to  the  former  of  these  ofierings,  then  the  firstfruits  must  refer 
to  a  portion  of  the  harvest  or  vintage  presented  to  God,  and  the 
lump  to  the  residue  of  the  grain  or  grapes.  If  the  allusion  be 
to  the  second,  then  the  firstfruits  mean  the  portion  of  dough 
offered  to  God,  and  the  lump  the  residue  of  the  mass.  The 
latter  is  undoubtedly  most  consistent  with  the  meaning  of  the 
word  {(pupa/ia)  used  by  the  apostle,  which  can  hardly  be  under- 
stood as  referring-  to  heaps  of  grain,  or  other  productions  of  the 
earth.  In  either  case,  however,  the  purport  of  the  illustration 
is  the  same. 

A  second  question  is,  Who  are  intended  by  the  first-fruits 
and  the  root,  and  by  the  lump  and  the  branches,  in  these  two 
figures  ?  With  respect  to  this  question,  the  following  are  the 
most  common  and  plausible  answers:  1.  The  first-fruits  are 
understood  to  mean  the  Jews  first  converted  to  the  Christian 
faith,  who  became,  as  it  were,  the  root  of  the  Christian  church. 
According  to  this  view  of  the  passage,  the  apostle  designs  to 
say,  '  Since  the  first  converts  to  the  gospel  were  Jews,  it  is 
evident  that  the  nation,  as  such,  is  not  cast  off  by  God;  as  a 
portion  of  them  is  holy  (or  have  been  accepted  of  God,)  so  may 
the  residue  be.'     2.  By  the  first-fruits  and  the  root,  may  be 


ROMANS  XI.  16.  577 

understood  the  patriarchs,  the  forefathers  of  the  Jews ;  and  by 
the  lump  and  the  branches,  the  residue  of  the  nation,  or  the 
Jews  as  a  people.  That  this  latter  is  the  true  meaning  of  the 
passage  seems  very  evident:  1.  Because  this  interpretation 
alone  preserves  the  propriety  of  the  figure.  How  can  the 
unconverted  Jews  or  the  Jewish  nation  be  called  the  branches 
of  the  portion  that  became  followers  of  Christ  ?  The  Gentile 
Christians  might  be  so  called,  but  not  the  Jewish  people,  as 
such.  On  the  other  hand,  nothing  is  more  natural  than  to  call 
the  ancestors   the  root,  and  their  descendants  the  branches. 

2.  This  interpretation  best  suits  the  design  of  the  apostle.  He 
wishes  to  show  that  the  conversion  of  the  Jews,  which  he  had 
declared  to  be  so  desirable  for  the  Gentiles,  was  a  probable 
event.  He  proves  this  by  referring  to  the  relation  of  their 
ancestors  to  God.  If  they  were  the  peculiar  people  of  God, 
their  descendants  may  be  regarded  as  his  also,  since  the  cove- 
nant was   not   with  Abraham  only,   but  also  with  his    seed. 

3.  This  is  the  apostle's  own  explanation  in  ver.  28,  where  the 
unconverted  Jews,  or  Hebrew  nation,  as  such,  are  said  to  be 
"beloved  for  the  father's  sake."  4.  This  interpretation  alone 
can  be  consistently  carried  through  the  following  verses.  The 
Gentile  Christians  are  not  said  (ver.  17)  to  be  grafted  into  the 
stock  of  the  converted  Jews,  but  as  branches  with  them  they 
are  united  to  a  common  stock.  And  the  stock  into  which  the 
branches,  now  broken  off,  are  to  be  again  grafted,  is  not  the 
Jewish  part  of  the  Christian  church,  but  the  original  family  or 
household  of  God. 

The  word  (ciycoi;)  rendered  holi/,  which  properly  means  clean, 
is  used  in  two  general  senses  in  the  Scriptures :  1.  Consecrated; 
2.  Pure.  In  the  former  of  these,  it  is  applied,  times  without 
number,  in  the  Old  Testament,  to  persons,  places,  and  things 
considered  as  peculiarly  devoted  to  the  service  of  God.  So  the 
whole  Jewish  people,  without  reference  to  their  moral  charac- 
ter, are  called  a  holy  people.  So,  too,  the  temple,  tabernacle, 
and  all  their  contents,  were  called  holy,  &c.  The  use  of  the 
word  in  this  sense,  in  reference  to  places  and  things,  is  not 
unfrequent  in  the  New  Testament.  Matt.  iv.  5,  where  Jerusa- 
lem is  called  the  "holy  city;"  see  Matt.  vii.  6,  xxiv.  15,  xxvii. 
53,  and  often.  It  is,  however,  rarely  so  used  in  relation  to 
37 


578  ROMANS  XL  17. 

persons.  In  the  vast  majority  of  instances,  when  thus  applied, 
it  means,  morally  pure;  yet,  in  some  cases,  it  signifies,  devoted 
to  God.  Luke  ii.  23,  "Every  male  that  openeth  the  womb 
shall  be  called  holy  unto  the  Lord."  Perhaps,  too,  in  the 
expressions,  "the  holy  prophets,"  Luke  i.  70,  and  "holy  apos- 
tles," Eph.  iii.  5,  the  reference  is  rather  to  their  relation  to 
God,  as  persons  devoted  to  his  service,  than  to  their  moral  cha- 
racter. In  1  Cor.  vii.  14,  the  children  of  professing  Christians 
are  called  "holy,"  not  in  reference  to  their  moral  condition, 
but  their  relation  to  the  church.  In  like  manner,  in  this  pas- 
sage, the  Jews,  as  a  people,  are  called  holy,  because  peculiarly 
consecrated  to  God,  separated  from  the  rest  of  the  world  for 
his  service.* 

The  connection  of  this  verse  with  the  preceding,  its  import 
and  bearing  on  the  apostle's  object  are  therefore  clear.  The 
restoration  of  the  Jews,  which  will  be  attended  with  such  bene- 
ficial results  for  the  whole  world,  is  to  be  expected,  because  of 
their  peculiar  relation  to  God  as  his  chosen  people.  God,  in 
selecting  the  Hebrew  patriarchs,  and  setting  them  apart  for  his 
service,  had  reference  to  their  descendants,  as  well  as  to  them- 
selves ;  and  designed  that  the  Jews,  as  a  people,  should,  to  the 
latest  generations,  be  specially  devoted  to  himself.  They  stand 
now,  therefore,  and  ever  have  stood,  in  a  relation  to  God  which 
no  other  nation  ever  has  sustained ;  and,  in  consequence  of  this 
relation,  their  restoration  to  the  divine  favour  is  an  event  in 
itself  probable,  and  one,  which  Paul  afterwards  teaches  (ver. 
25,)  God  has  determined  to  accomplish. 

Vekses  17 — 24.  The  object  of  these  verses  is  to  make  such 
an  application  of  the  truths  which  Paul  had  just  taught  as 
should  prevent  any  feeling  of  exultation  or  triumph  of  the  Gen- 
tile Christians  over  the  Jews.  It  is  true  that  the  Jews  have 
been  partially  rejected  from  the  church  of  God;  that  the  Gen- 
tiles have  been  introduced  into  it ;  and  that  the  Jews  are  ulti- 
mately to  be  restored.    These  things,  however,  afibrd  no  ground 

*  Non  est  mirum,  si  in  patre  suo  Judai  sanctificati  sint.  Nihil  hio  erit 
difBcultatis,  si  sanctitatem  intelligas  nihil  esse  aliud,  quam  spiritualem  gene- 
ris nobilitatem,  et  earn  quidem  non  propriam  naturae,  sed  quae  ex  foedere 
manabat.  .  .  .  Electi  populi  dignitas,  proprie  loquendo,  supernaturale  privi- 
legium  est. —  Calvin. 


ROMANS  XI.  17.  579 

of  boasting  to  the  Gentiles,  but  rather  cause  of  thankfulness 
and  caution.  Paul  illustrates  these  truths  by  a  very  appropri- 
ate figure. 

Verse  17.  And  if  some  of  the  branches  be  broken  off,  and 
thou,  being  a  wild  olive  tree,  wert  grafted  in  among  them,  &c. 
The  words   h  ahzolz  may  refer  to  the  branches  in  general, 
and  be  rendered  as  in  our  version,  among  them;  or  they  may 
refer  to  the  rejected  branches,  ;iii  I  be  rendered,  in  their  'place. 
'  Some  of  the  branches  have  been  broken  off,  and  you  have  been 
inserted  in  their  place.'     The  purport  of  the  passage  is  plain. 
Some  of  the  Jews  were  broken  off  and  rejected ;  the  Gentiles, 
though  apparently  little  susceptible   of  such  a  blessing,  were 
introduced  into  the  church,  and  made  to  partake  of  all  its  pecu- 
liar and  precious  privileges.     The  Jewish  church  is  compared 
to  the  olive  tree,  one    of  the  most  durable,  productive,  and 
valuable  of  the  productions  of  the  earth,  because  it  was  highly 
favoured,  and  therefore  valued  in  the  sight  of  God.     The  Gen- 
tiles are  compared  to  the  wild  olive,  one  of  the  most  worthless 
of  trees,  to  express  the  degradation  of  their  state,  considered 
as  estranged  from  God.     As  it  is  customary  to  engraft  good 
scions  on  inferior  stocks,  the  nature  of  the  product  being  deter- 
mined by  the  graft,  and  not  the  root,  it  has  been  thought  that 
the  illustration  of  the  apostle  is  not  very  apposite.     But  the 
difficulty  may  result  fiom  pressing  the  comparison  too  far.    The 
idea  may  be  simply  this,  'As  the  scion  of  one  tree  is  engrafted 
into  another,  and  has  no  independent  life,  but  derives  all  its 
vigour  from  the  root,  so  the  Gentiles  are  introduced  among  the 
people  of  God,  not  to  confer  but  to  receive  good.'     It  is  how- 
ever said,  on  the  authority  of  ancient  writers  and  of  modern 
travellers,  to  have  been  not  unusual  to  graft  the  wild  on  the 
cultivated  olive.*     Even  if  this  were  so,  it  would  not  be  perti- 
nent to  the  apostle's  object.    He  does  not  mean  to  say,  that  the 
graft  imparts  life  and  vigour  to  the  root,  but  the  very  reverse. 
There  is  no  necessity  for  departing  from  the  common  view. 

*  Columella  de  Re  rustica,  V.  9.  Solent  terebrari  olese  laetse,  in  foramen 
talea  viridis  oleastri  demittitur,  et  sic  velut  inita  arbor  fcecundo  semine  fer- 
tilior  exstat. 

Palladics  de  Re  rustica,  XIV.  53.  Foecundat  sterilis  pinguis  oleaster 
olivas,  et  quae  non  novit  munera  ferre  docet. 


580  ROMANS  XI.  18—20. 

The  Gentiles  are  saved  by  their  introduction  into  that  church 
of  which  the  patriarchs  were  the  root. 

It  is  plain  from  this  verse,  that  the  root  in  this  passage  can- 
not be  the  early  converts  from  among  the  Jews,  but  the  ancient 
covenant  people  of  God.  The  ancient  theocracy  was  merged 
in  the  kingdom  of  Christ.  The  latter  is  but  an  enlargement 
and  elevation  of  the  former.  There  has,  therefore,  never  been 
other  than  one  family  of  God  on  earth,  existing  under  diflFerent 
institutions,  and  enjoying  diflFerent  degrees  of  light  and  favour. 
This  family  was  composed,  of  old,  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and 
Jacob,  and  their  descendants.  At  the  advent,  its  name  and 
circumstances  were  changed;  many  of  its  old  members  were 
cast  out,  and  others  introduced,  but  it  is  the  same  family  still. 
Or,  to  return  to  the  apostle's  illustration,  it  is  the  same  tree, 
some  of  the  branches  only  being  changed. 

Verse  18.  Boast  not  thyself  against  the  branches;  xaza- 
xauyaonoj.  means,  to  boast  against,  in  the  sense  of  glorying  over 
any  one.  But  if  thou  boast,  thou  bearest  not  the  root,  but  the 
root  thee.  A  concise  expression,  for.  If  thou  boast,  (i.  e.,  art 
disposed  to  do  it.)  consider  that  thou  bearest  not  the  root,  &c. 
The  Gentiles  had  been  brought  into  fellowship  with  the  patri- 
archs, not  the  patriarchs  with  them.  Salvation  was  from  the 
Jews.  The  truth  that  the  Jews  were  the  channel  of  blessings 
to  the  Gentiles,  and  not  the  reverse,  was  adapted  to  prevent  all 
ungenerous  and  self-confident  exultation  of  the  latter  over  the 
former. 

Verse  19.  You  will  say  then,  The  branches  were  broken  off, 
that  I  might  be  grafted  in.  The  apostle  guards  against  a  fur- 
ther ground  of  self-complacency  on  the  part  of  the  Gentiles. 
Although  forced  to  admit  that  the  root  bore  him,  and  not  he 
the  root,  yet  he  might  pride  himself  on  the  fact,  that  the 
branches  were  broken  oflf,  and  he  put  in  their  place.  To  this  it 
is  answered,  that  the  Gentiles  .are  not  authorized  to  infer,  from 
the  fact  that  the  Jews  were  rejected,  and  they  chosen,  that  this 
occurred  on  the  ground  of  their  being  in  themselves  better  than 
the  Jews.  The  true  reason  of  this  dispensation  is  assigned  in 
the  next  verse. 

Verse  20.  Well,  because  of  unbelief  they  were  broken  off,  &c. 
The  fact  that  they  were  broken  off  is  admitted,  but  the  infer- 


ROMANS  XI.  21,  22.  581 

ence  drawn  by  the  Gentiles  is  denied.  It  was  not  for  any 
personal  considerations  that  the  one  was  rejected  and  the  other 
chosen.  The  Jews  were  rejected  because  they  rejected  the 
Saviour,  and  the  only  tenure  by  which  the  advantages  of  a 
covenant  relation  to  God  can  be  retained  is  faith.  The  Gen- 
tiles will  not  be  secure,  because  Gentiles,  any  more  than  the 
Jews  were  safe,  because  Jews.  Instead,  therefore,  of  being 
high-minded,  they  should  fear. 

Verse  21.  If  G-od  spared  not  the  natural  branches,  take 
heed  lest  he  also  spare  not  thee.  The  clause,  fX^ncDi;  ouds  ah 
(ptia/jTou,  must  depend  on  something  understood.  Our  trans- 
lators supply  ^^.snere,  take  heed;  others,  (fo^ou/jiai,  I  fear. 
The  Gentile  has  even  more  reason  to  fear  than  the  Jew  had. 
It  was  in  itself  far  more  probable  that  God  would  spare  a 
people  so  long  connected  with  him  in  the  most  peculiar  manner, 
than  that  he  should  spare  those  who  had  no  such  claims  on  his 
mercy.  The  idea  intended  to  be  expressed  by  this  verse  pro- 
bably is,  that  the  Jews,  from  their  relation  to  God,  were  more 
likely  to  be  spared  than  the  Gentiles,  inasmuch  as  God  is 
accustomed  to  bear  long  with  the  recipients  of  his  mercy,  before 
he  casts  them  off;  even  as  a  father  bears  long  with  a  son, 
before  he  discards  him  and  adopts  another. 

Verse  22.  Behold,  therefore,  the  goodness  and  severity  of 
Grod:  on  them  which  fell,  severity;  hut  on  thee,  goodness. 
Instead  of  the  accusatives  datovofiiav  and  y^p'qarox-qra,  Lach- 
mann  and  Tischendorf  read  dnoToiiia  and  y^prjoxoxr^z.  If  this 
reading  be  adopted,  laxiv  must  be  supplied.  '  Towards  the  one 
class  there  is  severity,  towards  the  other  kindness.'  The  effect 
which  the  consideration  of  these  dispensations  of  God  should 
produce,  is  gratitude  and  fear.  Gratitude,  in  view  of  the  favour 
which  we  Gentiles  have  received,  and  fear  lest  we  should  be  cut 
off;  for  our  security  does  not  depend  upon  our  now  enjoying 
the  blessings  of  the  church  of  God,  but  is  dependent  on  our 
continuing  in  the  divine  goodness  or  favour,  (Rom.  iii.  4,  Titus 
iii.  4,)  that  is,  on  our  doing  nothing  to  forfeit  that  favour ;  its 
continuance  being  suspended  on  the  condition  of  our  fidelity. 
If  thou  continue  in  {his)  goodness,  kav  iTn/nsivr/^  xfj  ■ypr^axbxTiXt, 
is  sometimes  explained  to  mean,  if  thou  continue  in  goodness, 
i.  e.,  in  being  good,  according  to  the  analogy  of  the  following 


582  ROMANS  XI.  23. 

clause,  fir)  enifisiucoai  rfj  dTziozia,  if  they  continue  not  in  unbe- 
lief. But  this  is  inconsistent  with  the  context.  The  y^prjaxoxr^ci 
spoken  of,  is  the  goodness  or  love  of  God.  Compare  Acts 
xiii.  43,  Trpoafjisvecu  zfj  y^pcTi  too  deou,  to  remain  in  the  grace 
of  Grod.  "Otherwise  thou  also  shalt  be  cut  off,"  knee  xat  ah 
ixxoTc^arj,  since,  in  that  case,  (i.  e.,  if  thou  continuest  not  in  his 
goodness,)  thou  also  shalt  be  cut  off;  ixxoTi^arj,  second  future 
indicative  passive.  There  is  nothing  in  this  language  incon- 
sistent with  the  doctrine  of  the  final  perseverance  of  believers, 
even  supposing  the  passage  to  refer  to  individuals;  for  it  is 
very  common  to  speak  thus  hypotheticallj,  and  say  that  an 
event  cannot,  or  will  not  come  to  pass,  unless  the  requisite 
means  are  employed,  when  the  occurrence  of  the  event  had 
been  rendered  certain  by  the  previous  purpose  and  promise  of 
God;  see  Acts  xxvii."  31.  The  foundation  of  all  such  state- 
ments is  the  simple  truth,  that  He  who  purposes  the  end,  pur- 
poses also  the  means ;  and  he  brings  about  the  end  by  securing 
the  use  of  the  means.  And  when  rational  agents  are  concerned, 
he  secures  the  use  of  the  means  by  rational  considerations  pre- 
sented to  their  minds,  and  rendered  effectual  by  his  grace,  when 
the  end  contemplated  is  good.  This  passage,  however,'  has  no 
legitimate  bearing  on  this  subject.  Paul  is  not  speaking  of  the 
connection  of  individual  believers  with  Christ,  which  he  had 
abundantly  taught  in  chap.  viii.  and  elsewhere,  to  be  indissolu- 
ble, but  of  the  relation  of  communities  to  the  church  and  its 
various  privileges.  There  is  no  promise  or  covenant  on  the 
part  of  God,  securing  to  the  Gentiles  the  enjoyment  of  these 
blessings  through  all  generations,  any  more  than  there  was  any 
such  promise  to  protect  the  Jews  from  the  consequences  of  their 
unbelief.  The  continuance  of  these  favours  depends  on  the 
conduct  of  each  successive  generation.  Paul  therefore  says  to 
the  Gentile,  that  he  must  continue  in  the  divine  favour,  "  other- 
wise thou  also  shalt  be  cut  off." 

Verse  23.  And  they  also,  if  they  bide  not  in  unbelief,  shall 
be  graffed  in,  &c.  The  principle  which  the  apostle  had  just 
stated  as  applicable  to  the  Gentiles,  is  applicable  also  to  the 
Jews.  Neither  one  nor  the  other,  simply  because  Jew  or  Gen- 
tile, is  either  retained  in  the  church  or  excluded  from  it.  As 
the  one  continues  in  this  relation  to  God,  only  on  condition  of 


ROMANS  XI.  24.  583 

faith,  so  the  other  is  excluded  by  his  unbelief  alone.  Nothing 
but  unbelief  prevents  the  Jews  being  brought  back,  "  for  God 
is  able  to  graff  them  in  again."*  That  is,  not  merely  has  God 
the  power  to  accomplish  this  result,  but  the  difficulty  or  impedi- 
ment is  not  in  him,  but  solely  in  themselves.  There  is  no 
inexorable  purpose  in  the  divine  mind,  nor  any  insuperable 
obstacle  in  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  which  forbids  their 
restoration ;  on  the  contrary,  the  event  is,  in  itself  considered, 
far  more  probable  than  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles. 

Verse  24.  For  if  thou  wert  cut  out  of  the  olive-tree  which  is 
wild  by  nature,  and  wert  graffed  contrary  to  nature  into  a  good 
olive-tree;  how  much  more,  &c.  The  connection  indicated  by 
ydp  {for,)  is  not  with  the  preceding  clause,  Crod  is  able  to  graff 
them  in  again,  because  what  follows  does  not  prove  the  power 
of  God  to  restore  the  Jews  to  their  ancient  privileges,  but  that 
their  restoration  is  a  probable  event.  The  connection,  there- 
fore, is  with  the  main  idea  in  the  context,  as  expressed  in 
ver.  23,  "They  shall  be  graffed  in."  This  may  be  expected, 
he  says,  for,  &c.  The  Gentiles  were  of  the  wild  olive,  having 
no  natural  connection  with  the  tree  into  which  they  were 
graffed.  The  Jews  were  its  natural  branches.  In  itself  con- 
sidered, therefore,  their  reunion  with  their  native  stalk  was 
more  probable  than  the  graffing  in  of  the  Gentiles.  The  oppo- 
sition, however,  between  xava  (puocv  and  Trapa  (poacv,  does  not 
refer  to  any  natural  fitness  of  the  Jews,  as  a  race,  for  the  true 
religion,  in  opposition  to  the  unsuitableness  of  the  Gentiles. 
According  to  the  Scriptures,  there  is  no  difference,  so  far  as 
their  relation  to  God  is  concerned,  between  the  different  races 
of  men,  since  all  have  sinned.  They  are  all  alike  unfit  for  the 
service  and  enjoyment  of  God,  and  alike  unable  to  save  them- 
selves. And,  on  the  other  hand,  they  are  alike  susceptible  of 
the  salvation  of  the  gospel,  which  is  adapted  to  all  classes  of 
men.  The  words  in  question  are  used  only  to  preserve  the 
figure  of  a  tree  and  its  branches.  The  simple  meaning,  there- 
fore, of  this  verse  is,  that  the  future  restoration  of  the  Jews  is, 

*  Frigidum  apud  homines  profanes  argumentum  hoc  foret.  ...  At  quia 
fideles  quoties  Dei  potentiam  nominari  audiunt,  quasi  prsesens  opus  intuen- 
tur,  liauc   rationem   satis  putavit  Talere,  ad  percellendas   eorum  mentes. — 

Calvin, 


584  ROMANS  XL  25. 

in  itself,  a  more  probable  event  than  the  introduction  of  the 
Gentiles  into  the  church  of  God.  This,  of  course,  supposes 
that  God  regarded  the  Jews,  on  account  of  their  relation  to 
him,  with  peculiar  favour,  and  that  there  is  still  something  in 
their  relation  to  the  ancient  servants  of  God,  and  his  covenant 
with  them,  which  causes  them  to  be  regarded  with  special 
interest.  As  men  look  upon  the  children  of  their  early  friends 
with  kinder  feelings  than  on  the  children  of  strangers,  God 
refers  to  this  fact  to  make  us  sensible  that  he  still  retains  pur- 
poses of  peculiar  mercy  towards  his  ancient  people.  The 
restoration  of  this  people,  therefore,  to  the  blessings  of  the 
church  of  God,  is  far  from  being  an  improbable  event. 

Verse  25.  For  I  would  not,  brethren,  have  you  ignorant  of 
this  mystery,  lest  ye  should  he  ivise  in  your  own  conceits,  that 
blindness  in  part  has  happened  unto  Israel,  until  the  fulness 
of  the  Grentiles  be  come  in.  Although  the  interpretations  given 
of  this  and  the  following  verses  are  very  numerous,  they  are  all 
modifications  of  one  or  the  other  of  the  two  following  general 
views  of  the  passage.  1.  Many  understand  the  apostle  as  not 
predicting  any  remarkable  future  conversion  of  the  Jewish 
nation,  but  merely  declaring  that  the  hardening  or  blinding  of 
the  nation,  was  not  such  as  to  prevent  many  Jews  entering  the 
Christian  church,  as  long  as  the  Gentiles  continued  to  come  in. 
Thus  all  the  true  Israel,  embracing  Jews  as  well  as  Gentiles, 
should  ultimately  be  saved.  2.  The  second  general  view  sup- 
poses the  apostle,  on  the  contrary,  to  predict  a  great  and  gene- 
ral conversion  of  the  Jewish  people,  which  should  take  place 
when  the  fulness  of  the  Gentiles  had  been  brought  in,  and  that 
then,  and  not  till  then,  those  prophecies  should  be  fully  accom- 
plished which  speak  of  the  salvation  of  Israel.  The  former  of 
these  views  was  presented,  in  diflFerent  forms,  by  the  great  body 
of  the  authors  who  lived  about  the  time  of  the  Reformation ; 
who  were  led  by  the  extravagancies  of  the  Millenarians,  who 
built  much  on  this  passage,  to  explain  away  its  prophetic 
character  almost  entirely.*     Olshausen,  in  order  to  show  the 

*  Wolfius,  in  his  Curfe,  gives  an  account  of  the  authors  who  discuss  the 
meaning  of  this  and  the  following  verses,  as  Calovius  in  Bibliis  Illustratis ; 
Buddeus  in  Institutio  Theol.  Dog.,  p.  672.  Wolfius  himself  says,  "  Contextus 
suadet  credere,  Paulum  id  hie  tantum  agere,  ut  conversi  e  Gentilibus  non 


KOMANS  XI.  25.  585 

hostile  feeling  entertained  by  the  Reformers  towards  the  Jews, 
quotes  a  passage  from  Luther,  which  does  not  admit  of  trans- 
lation :  "  Ein  jlidisch  Herz  ist  so  stoch-stein-eisen-teufelhart, 
das  mit  keiner  Weise  zu  bewegen  ist ; — es  sind  junge  Teufel  zur 
Hblle  verdammt,  diese  Teufelskinder  zu  bekehren  ist  unmog- 
lich,  wie  etliche  solchen  Wahn  schopfen  aus  der  Epistel  an  die 
Romer." 

The  second  view  has  been  the  one  generally  received  in  every 
age  of  the  church,  with  the  exception  of  the  period  just  referred 
to.  That  it  is  the  correct  interpretation,  appears  evident  for 
the  following  reasons :  1.  The  whole  context  and*  drift  of  the 
apostle's  discourse  is  in  its  favour.  In  the  preceding  part  of 
the  chapter,  Paul,  in  the  plainest  terms,  had  taught  that  the 
conversion  of  the  Jews  was  a  probable  event,  and  that  it  would 
be  in  the  highest  degree  beneficial  and  glorious  for  the  whole 
world.  This  idea  is  presented  in  various  forms;  and  practical 
lessons  are  deduced  from  it  in  such  a  way  as  to  show  that  he 
contemplated  something  more  than  merely  the  silent  addition 
of  a  few  Israelites  to  the  church  during  successive  ages.  2.  It 
is  evident  that  Paul  meant  to  say,  that  the  Jews  were  to  be 
restored  in  the  sense  in  which  they  were  then  rejected.  They 
were  then  rejected  not  merely  as  individuals,  but  as  a  com'mu- 
nity,  and  therefore  are  to  be  restored  as  a  community;  see 
vs.  11,  15.  How  can  the  latter  passage  (ver.  15,)  especially, 
be  understood  of  the  conversion  of  the  small  number  of  Jews 
which,  from  age  to  age,  have  joined  the  Christian  Church? 
This  surely  has  not  been  as  "life  from  the  dead,"  for  the  whole 
world.  3.  It  is  plain  from  this  and  other  parts  of  the  dis- 
course, that  Paul  refers  to  a  great  event ;  something  which 
should  attract  universal  attention.  4.  In  accordance  with  this 
idea,  is  the  manner  of  introducing  this  verse,  I  would  not  have 
you  ignorant,  brethren;  see  1  Cor.  x.  1,  xii.  1,  and  elsewhere. 
Paul  uses  this  form  of  address  when  he  wishes  to  rouse  the 
attention  of  his  readers  to  something  specially  important. 
5.  The  gradual  conversion  of  a  few  Jews  is  no  mystery,  in  the 
scriptural  sense  of  the  word.     The  word  fxuazijpcov,  secret,  is 

existiment,  Judgeis  omnem  spem  ad  Christum  in  posterum  perveniendi  prae- 
cisam  esse,  sed  ita  potius  statuant,  ipsis  non  minus  ceteris  Gentilibus,  nondum 
conversis,  viam  patera,  qua  ad  Christum  perducantur." 


586  ROMANS  XL  25. 

not  generally  used,  in  the  New  Testament,  in  the  sense  of  the 
word  mystery.  It  means  simply,  what  is  hidden,  or  unknown ; 
whether  because  it  is  an  unrevealed  purpose  of  God ;  or 
because  it  is  future ;  or  because  it  is  covered  up  in  parables  or 
symbols,  (as  the  mystery  of  the  seven  candlesticks,  Rev.  i.  20 ;) 
or  because  it  lies  beyond  the  reach  of  the  human  mind,  Eph. 
V.  32.  It  is  only  in  the  last-mentioned  case  that  fiuox-qpiov 
answers  to  our  word  mystery.  Whatever  needs  an  djioxdXu(pc<;, 
to  become  an  object  of  knowledge,  is  a  fxoarijpcov.  It  is  there- 
fore used  in  reference  to  all  the  doctrines  of  the  gospel  which 
are  not  the  t^-uths  of  reason,  but  matters  of  divine  revelation ; 
Rom.  xvi.  25,  1  Cor.  ii.  7,  iv.  1,  Eph.  vi.  19,  &c.  Hence  minis- 
ters are  called  stewards  of  the  mysteries  (i.  e.,  of  the  revela- 
tions) of  God.  It  is  also  used  of  some  one  doctrine,  considered 
as  previously  unknown  and  undiscoverable  by  human  reason, 
however  simple  and  intelligible  in  its  own  nature.  Thus,  the 
fact  that  the  Gentiles  should  be  admitted  into  the  church  of 
God,  Paul  calls  a  mystery,  Eph.  i.  9,  iii.  4.  Any  future  event, 
therefore,  which  could  be  known  only  by  divine  revelation,  is  a 
mystery.  The  fact  that  all  should  not  die,  though  all  should 
be  changed,  was  a  mystery,  1  Cor.  xv.  51.  In  like  manner, 
here,  when  Paul  says,  "  I  would  not,  brethren,  have  you  igno- 
rant of  this  mystery,"  he  means  to  say,  that  the  event  to  which 
he  referred,  was  one  which,  depending  on  no  secondary  cause, 
but  on  the  divine  purpose,  could  be  known  only  by  divine  reve- 
lation. This  description  is  certainly  far  more  suitable  to  the 
annunciation  of  a  prophecy,  than  to  the  statement  of  a  fact 
which  might  have  been  confidently  inferred  from  what  God  had 
already  revealed.  6.  The  words,  all  Israel,  in  the  next  verse, 
cannot,  as  the  first  interpretation  mentioned  above  would 
require,  be  understood  of  the  spiritual  Israel;  because  the 
word  is  just  before  used  in  a  different  sense,  "  blindness  in  part 
has  happened  unto  Israel."  This  blindness  is  to  continue  until 
a  certain  time,  when  it  is  to  be  removed,  and  then  all  Israel  is 
to  be  saved.  It  is  plain,  that  Israel  in  these  cases  must  be 
understood  as  referring  to  the  same  class  of  persons.  This  is 
also  clear  from  the  opposition  between  the  terms  Israel  and 
Gentile.  7.  The  words  {p.y^ptc,  6b,)  correctly  rendered  in  our 
version,  until,  cannot,  so  consistently  with  usage,  be  translated, 


ROMANS  XI.  25.  587 

as  long  as,  or  so  that,  followed  as  they  are  here  by  the  aorist 
subjunctive;  see  Rev.  xv.  8,  xvii.  17;  compare  Heb.  iii.  13. 
8.  The  following  verses  seem  to  require  this  interpretation. 
The  result  contemplated  is  one  which  shall  be  a  full  accomplish- 
ment of  those  prophecies  which  predicted  the  salvation  of  the 
Jews.  The  reason  given  in  vs.  28,  29,  for  the  event  to  which 
Paul  refers,  is  the  unchangeableness  of  God's  purposes  and 
covenant.  Having  once  taken  the  Jews  into  special  connection 
with  himself,  he  never  intended  to  cast  them  off  for  ever.  The 
apostle  sums  up  his  discourse  by  saying,  'As  the  Gentiles  were 
formerly  unbelieving,  and  yet  obtained  mercy,  so  the  Jews  who 
now  disbelieve,  shall  hereafter  be  brought  in ;  and  thus  God 
will  have  mercy  on  all,  both  Jews  and  Gentiles.'  .  From  all 
these  considerations,  it  seems  obvious  that  Paul  intended  here 
to  predict  that  the  time  would  come  when  the  Jews,  as  a  body, 
should  be  converted  unto  the  Lord;  compare  2  Cor.  iii.  16. 
The  prediction  contained  in  this  verse  is  to  be  explained  by  the 
context.  The  rejection  of  the  Jews  at  the  time  of  Christ,  did 
not  involve  the  perdition  of  every  individual  of  that  nation. 
Thousands,  and  even  myriads,  believed  and  were  saved.  So  the 
restoration  here  foretold  is  not  to  be  understood  as  including 
every  individual  of  the  Jewish  people,  but  simply  that  there  is 
to  be  a  national  restoration. 

Lest  ye  should  he  wise  in  your  own  conceits.  This  is  given 
as  the  reason  why  the  apostle  wished  the  Gentiles  to  know  and 
consider  the  event  which  he  was  about  to  announce.  This 
clause  may  meaii  either,  '  Lest  ye  proudly  imagine  that  your 
own  ideas  of  the  destiny  of  the  Jews  are  correct;'  or,  'Lest  ye 
be  proud  and  elated,  as  though  you  were  better  and  more 
highly  favoured  than  the  Jcavs.'  The  former  is  perhaps  most 
in  accordance  with  the  literal  meaning  of  the  words  {kv  kauzdlz 
(ppovcuoc ;)  see  Prov.  iii.  7. 

Blindness  in  part,  i.  e.,  partial  blindness ;  partial  as  to  its 
extent  and  continuance.  Because  not  all  the  Jews  were  thus 
blinded,  nor  was  the  nation  to  remain  blind  for  ever.  The 
words  6.710  [lipooz  are  not  to  be  connected  with  7co)poiai(;,  nor 
with  x(L  lapa/jX;  but  with  yexovsv.  'Blindness  has  partially 
happened  to  Israel.'  The  reference,  however,  is  not  to  the 
degree,  but  to  the  continuance  of  this  blindness.    It  is  not  final 


588  ROMANS  XI.  25. 

and  hopeless;  it  is  only  for  a  time.  The  word  incopcoatz) 
rendered  blindness,  is  mofe  correctly  rendered,  in  Mark 
iii.  5,  hardness;  compare  Eph.  iv.  16;  see  ver.  7,  and  chap, 
ix.  18. 

Until  the  fulness  of  the  Gentiles  be  come  in.  Until,  d^pc;  oh, 
marks  the  terminus  ad  quern.  This  blindness  of  Israel  is  to 
continue  until  something  else  happened.  There  were  to  be,  and 
have  been  numerous  conversions  to  Christianity  from  among  the 
Jews,  in  every  age  since  the  advent ;  but  their  national  conver- 
sion is  not  to  occur  until  the  heathen  are  converted.  What, 
however,  is  definitely  meant  by  the  nXi^ptofxa  zwv  i'd-PQ)P,  it  is 
not  easy  to  determine.  The  question  is  not  to  be  decided  by 
the  mere  signification  of  the  words.  In  whatever  way  they  may 
be  explained,  the  general  idea  is  the  same.  The  T:Xrjpo)p.a  of 
the  Gentiles  may  mean,  that  which  makes  the  Gentiles,  as  to 
number,  full.  Or,  according  to  others,  the  Gentiles  themselves 
are  the  7:Xrjp(D[xa,  i.  e.,  the  complement;  they  make  full  the 
vacancy  left  by  the  rejection  of  the  Jews.  Or,  as  is  commonly 
assumed,  TzX-qpoifxa  is  be  taken  in  a. secondary  sense,  for  multi- 
tude. Compare  Gen.  xlviii.  19:  "Multitude  (literally  fulness) 
of  nations;"  and  Isa.  xxxi.  4,  "Multitude  (fulness)  of  shep- 
herds." This  does  not  mean  the  totality  of  the  Gentiles.  It  is 
not  Paul's  doctrine,  that  all  Gentiles  who  ever  lived  are  to  be 
introduced  into  the  kingdom  of  Christ.  Nor  does  it  mean,  that 
all  the  Gentiles  who  may  be  alive  when  the  Jews  are  converted, 
shall  be  true  Christians.  All  that  can  be  j^nfely  inferred  from 
this  language  is,  that  the  Gentiles,  as  a  bod;^^  the  mass  of  the 
Gentile  world,  will  be  converted  before  the  restoration  of  the 
Jews,  as  a  nation.  Much  will  remain  to  be  accomplished  after 
that  event;  and  in  the  accomplishment  of  what  shall  then 
remain  to  be  done,  the  Jews  are  to  have  a  prominent  agency. 
Their  conversion  will  be  as  life  from  the .  dead  to  the  church. 
We  must  remember,  that  Paul  is  here  speaking  as  a  prophet, 
iv  d7toxaX6(fitc,  1  Cor.  xiv.  6,  and  therefore  his  language  must  be 
interpreted  by  the  rules  of  prophetic  interpretation.  Prophecy 
is  not  proleptic  history.  It  is  not  designed  to  give  us  the  know- 
ledge of  the  future  which  history  gives  us  of  the  past.  Great 
events  are  foretold;  but  the  mode  of  their  occurrence,  their 
details,  and  their  consequences,  can  only  be  learned  by  the 


ROMANS  XL  26.  589 

event.  It  is  in  the  retrospect  that  the  foreshadowing  of  the 
future  is  seen  to  be  miraculous  and  divine. 
•  Verse  26.  And  so  all  Israel  shall  be  saved,  as  it  is  written. 
Israel,  here,  from  the  context,  must  mean  the  Jewish  people, 
and  all  Israel,  the  whole  nation.  The  Jews,  as  a  people,  are 
now  rejected ;  as  a  people,  they  are  to  be  restored.  As  their 
rejection,  although  national,  did  not  include  the  rejection  of 
every  individual ;  so  their  restoration,  although  in  like  manner 
national,  need  not  be  assumed  to  include  the  salvation  of  every 
individual  Jew.  /7ttc  '  lapar^X  is  not  therefore  to  be  here  under- 
stood to  mean,  all  the  true  people  of  God,  as  Augustin,  Calvin, 
and  many  others  explain  it ;  nor  all  the  elect  Jews,  i.  e.,  all  that 
part  of  the  nation  which  constitute  "  the  remnant  according  to 
the  election  of  grace;"  but  the  whole  nation,  as  a  nation. 

In  support  of  what  he  had  said,  the  apostle  appeals  to  the 
Old  Testament  prophecies.  It  is  probable  that  here,  as  else- 
where, he  does  not  intend  to  refer  exclusively  to  any  one  predic- 
tion, but  to  give  the  general  sense  of  many  specific  declarations 
of  the  ancient  prophets.  Isa.  lix.  20,  21,  xxvii.  9,  Jer.  xxxi. 
31 — 34,  Ps.  xiv.  7,  are  the  passages  which  seem  to  have  been 
immediately  before  the  apostle's  mind,  and  to  have  given  colour 
to  his  language.  In  Isa.  lix.  20,  it  is  said,  "The  Redeemer 
shall  come  to  Zion,  and  unto  them  that  turn  from  transgression 
in  Jacob."  Instead  of  ix  luov,  out  of  Zion,  the  LXX.  have 
evBxeu  luou,  for  the  sake  of  Zion,  the  English  version,  to  Zion. 
In  Ps.  xiv.  7,  it  is,  out  of  Zion.  The  latter  part  of  the  verse,  as 
given  by  Paul,  does  not  agree  with  the  Hebrew,  which  is  cor- 
rectly rendered  in  our  version,  "  To  such  as  turn  from  trans- 
gression (literally,  to  the  converts  of  transgression)  in  Jacob." 
Paul  follows  the  LXX.,  xal  aTtoazps^zt  aae^dai;  dizb  "" laxd)^, 
and  shall  turn  iniquity  fr^m  Jacob.  In  Isa.  xxvii.  9,  the  phrase 
is,  "the  iniquity  of  Jacob  shall  be  purged."  The  general  idea 
expressed  in  these  passages  is,  "  The  God,  the  deliverer,  shall 
come  for  the  salvation  of  Jacob,"  i.  e.,  of  the  Jews.  And  this 
is  all  that  Paul  desired  to  establish  by  these  ancient  prophecies. 
The  apostle  teaches,  that  the  deliverance  promised  of  old,  and 
to  which  the  prophet  Isaiah  referred  in  the  passage  above  cited, 
included  much  more  than  the  conversion  of  the  comparatively 
few  Jews  who  believed  in   Christ   at   the   advent.     The  full 


590  ROMANS  XI.  27,  28. 

accomplishment  of  the  promise,  that  he  should  turn  away 
ungodliness  from  Jacob,  contemplated  the  conversion  of  the 
whole  nation,  as  such,  to  the  Lord.  We  are,  of  course,  bound* 
to  receive  the  apostle's  interpretation  as  correct ;  and  there  is 
the  less  difficulty  in  this,  as  there  is  nothing  in  the  original 
passage  at  all  incompatible  with  it,  and  as  it  accords  with  the 
nature  of  God's  covenant  with  his  ancient  people. 

Verse  27.  For  this  is  my  covenant  unto  them;  auirrj  auroa;  i^ 
7:af)  ifioo  dm^ijxTj,  this  for  them  is  the  covenant  which  proceeds 
from  me.  In  the  Hebrew  it  is  simply,  my  covenant;  so  that 
;ra/)  i/200  is  for  the  genitive.  See,  however,  Winer,  iii.,  §  30. 
The  pronoun  aovi],  this,  is  to  be  referred  to  what  follows ;  this 
is  my  covenant,  (orav,  lohen,)  that  I  will  take  away  their  sins. 
The  demonstrative  pronoun  may  be  followed,  and  its  reference 
determined,  by  7va,  John  xvii.  3 ;  idv,  1  John  ii.  3 ;  and  as  in 
this  case,  and  in  1  John  v.  2,  by  brdp.  The  quotation  in  this 
verse,  as  that  in  ver.  26,  is  not  from  any  one  place.  The  words, 
This  is  my  covenant  with  them,  occur  in  Isa.  lix.  21 ;  the  clause, 
When  I  shall  take  away  their  sins,  is  from  Isa.  xxvii.  9,  as  ren- 
dered by  the  LXX.,  who  give  the  sense  of  the  Hebrew,  "Their 
iniquity  shall  be  purged;"  or,  literally,  to  take  away  his  sin. 
All  the  apostle  intended  to  prove,  is  proved  by  the  language  of 
the  prophets.  The  covenant  of  God  with  his  ancient  people 
secured,  after  their  apostacy  and  consequent  banishment  in 
Babylon,  and  their  dispersion  over  the  earth,  and  their  rejec- 
tion of  Christ,  the  ultimate  purging  away  of  their  sin,  and  their 
restoration,  as  a  nation,  to  the  Messiah's  kingdom.  This 
national  conversion  is  also  predicted  in  Zech.  xii.  10,  and  in 
many  other  passages  of  the  Old  Testament. 

Verse  28.  As  concerning  the  gospel,  they  are  enemies  for 
your  sahes  ;  hut  as  touching  the  election,  they  are  beloved  for  the 
fathers'  sahes.  In  this  and  the  few  following  verses,  the  apostle 
sums  up  what  he  had  previously  taught.  The  Jews,  he  says, 
were  now,  as  far  as  the  gospel  was  concerned,  regarded  and 
treated  as  enemies,  for  the  benefit  of  the  Gentiles;  but,  in 
reference  to  the  election,  they  were  still  regarded  as  the  pecu- 
liar people  of  God,  on  account  of  their  connection  with  the 
patriarchs.  They  are  enemies,  whether  of  the  gospel,  of  the 
apostle,  or  of  God,  is  not  expressed,  and  therefore  depends  on 


ROMANS  XI.  29.  591 

the  context.  Each  view  of  the  clause  has  its  advocates.  The 
last  is  the  correct  one,  because  they  are  enemies  to  him,  by 
whom,  on  one  account,  they  are  beloved.  The  word  ej^d-poc  may 
be  taken  actively  or  passively ;  see  v.  10.  They  are  inimical 
to  God,  or  they  are  regarded  and  treated  as  enemies  by  him. 
The  latter  best  suits  the  context.  They  are  now  aliens  from 
their  own  covenant  of  promise. 

As  concerning  the  gospel,  xara  to  ioayyeXcov,  tha>;  is,  the 
gospel  is  the  occasion  of  their  being  regarded  as  enemies.  This 
is  explained  by  a  reference  to  vs.  11,  15.  By  their  punishment 
the  progress  of  the  gospel  has  been  facilitated  among  the  Gen- 
tiles ;  and  therefore  the  apostle  says,  it  is  for  your  saJces  they 
are  thus  treated.  On  the  other  hand,  xara  ds  zrjv  kxlof^v,  as 
it  regards  the  election,  or  the  covenant  of  God,  they  are  still 
regarded  with  peculiar  favour,  because  descended  from  those 
patriarchs  to  whom  and  to  whose  seed  the  promises  were  made. 
This  is  but  expressing  in  a  different  form  the  idea  which  the 
apostle  had  previously  presented,  viz.,  that  the  covenant  made 
with  Abraham  was  inconsistent  with  the  final  rejection  of  the 
Jews,  as  a  people.  God  foresaw  and  predicted  their  temporary 
defection  and  rejection  from  his  kingdom,  but  never  contem- 
plated their  being  for  ever  excluded;  see  vs.  16,  25 — 27. 
"Paulus  autum  docet,  ita  (Judaeos)  fuisse  ad  tempus  Dei  provi- 
dentia  excaecatos,  ut  via  evangelio  ad  gentes  sterneretur :  csete- 
rum  non  esse  in  perpetuum  a  Dei  gratia  exclusos.  Fatetur 
ergo — Deum  non  esse  immemorem  foederis,  quod  cum  patribus 
eorum  pepigit,  et  quo  testatus  est,  se  seterno  consilio  gentem 
illam  dilectione  complexam  esse."   Calvin. 

Verse  29.  For  the  gifts  and  calling  of  G-od  are  without 
repentance  ;  ra  yapiapiaxa  xal  yj  x)J^ac(;,  the  gifts  of  God  in  gene- 
ral, and  specially  the  calling  of  God.  Compare  Mark  xvi.  7. 
God  is  not  a  man,  that  he  should  change.  Having  chosen  the 
Jews  as  his  people,  the  purpose  which  he  had  in  view  in  that 
choice  can  never  be  altered;  and  as  it  was  his  purpose  that 
they  should  ever  remain  his  people,  their  future  restoration  to 
his  favour  and  kingdom  is  certain.  Having  previously  explained 
the  nature  of  God's  covenant  with  his  ancient  people,  Paul 
infers  from  the  divine  character,  that  it  will  be  fully  accom- 
plished.    Calling  is  equivalent  to  election,  as  appears  from  the 


692  ROMANS  XI.  30,  31. 

context,  the  one  word  being  substituted  for  the  other,  and  also 
from  the  use  of  the  cognate  terms,  (see  chap.  viii.  28,  i.  7,  &c., 
&c.)  The  general  proposition  of  the  apostle,  therefore,  is,  that 
the  purposes  of  God  are  unchangeable;  and,  consequently, 
those  whom  God  has  chosen  for  any  special  benefit  cannot  fail 
to  attain  it.  The  persons  whom  he  hath  chosen  to  eternal  life 
shall  certainly  be  saved ;  and  the  people  whom  he  chooses  to  be 
his  peculiar  people,  as  the  Jews  were  chosen  in  Abraham,  must 
for  ever  remain  his  people.  The  purpose  once  formed,  and  the 
promise  once  given,  never  can  be  changed.  As  in  the  whole 
context  Paul  is  speaking,  not  of  individuals,  but  of  the  rejec- 
tion and  restoration  of  the  Jews  as  a  body,  it  is  evident  that 
the  calling  and  election  which  he  here  has  in  view,  are  such  as 
pertain  to  the  Jews  as  a  nation,  and  not  such  as  contemplate 
the  salvation  of  individuals. 

Verses  30,  31.  For  as  ye  in  times  past  have  not  believed 
Crod,  yet  have  now  obtained  mercy  through  their  unbelief;  even 
80,  &c.  These  verses  contain  a  repetition  and  confirmation  of 
the  previous  sentiment.  The  cases  of  the  Gentiles  and  Jews 
are  very  nearly  parallel.  Formerly  the  Gentiles  were  disbe- 
lieving, yet  the  unbelief  of  the  Jews  became  the  occasion  of 
their  obtaining  mercy;  so  now,  though  the  Jews  are  dis- 
obedient, the  mercy  shown  to  the  Gentiles  is  to  be  the  means 
of  their  obtaining  mercy.  As  the  gospel  came  from  the  Jews 
to  the  Gentiles,  so  is  it  to  return  from  the  Gentiles  to  the  Jews. 
Paul  had  before  stated  how  the  unbelief  of  the  Israelites  was 
instrumental  in  promoting  the  salvation  of  other  nations,  and 
how  the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles  was  to  re-act  upon  the  Jews. 

It  is  in  confirmation  of  what  had  just  been  said,  that  the 
apostle  introduces  what  follows  by  yap,  for.  For  as  ye  in  time 
past  have  not  believed.  Ye,  of  course  referring  to  the  Gentiles. 
In  times  past,  i.  e.,  before  the  coming  of  Christ.  Have  not 
believed  God,  /jnec^TJaaTs  Tip  6s(p,  disobeyed  Grod.  According 
to  the  Scriptures,  however,  faith  is  an  act  of  obedience,  and 
unbelief  is  disobedience.  Hence  the  to  obey  often  means  to 
believe  or  confide  in.  That  is,  the  same  act  may  be  expressed 
by  either  word.  Thus  in  Heb.  v.  9,  Christ  is  said  to  be  the 
author  of  salvation  to  all  those  who  obey  him.  In  the  New 
Testament  d.7ittd-fiv  and  drcec&sia  are  always  used  to  express 


ROMANS  XI.  32.  593 

disobedience  to  the  truth;  that  is,  the  act  of  rejecting  the 
truth.  It  is  not,  therefore,  moral  disobedience  in  general  that 
is  here  referred  to,  but  unbelief.  Have  obtained  mercy  through 
their  unbelief,  r^  to'jtcou  dittc&eia.  The  dative  has  here  a 
causal  force.  The  unbelief  of  the  Jews  was,  as  an  historical 
fact,  the  occasion  of  the  gospel's  being  extended  to  the  Gen- 
tiles. So  have  these  also  not  believed,  that  through  your  mercy 
they  may  also  obtain  mercy,  outw  xai  obroc  uuv  /^Tcscd^r^aai'  rw 
vyLtrkpi^  kXkti,  Iva  xac  auroc  kAtr^i^coac.  The  translation  given 
of  this  clause  in  the  English  version,  supposes  that  Iva  is 
out  of  its  proper  place,  and  should  stand  before  zw  bfiZTspii)  i/Jei, 
that  through  your  mercy  they  may  obtain  mercy.  In  the  Greek 
these  words  are  connected  with  YjTtec&r^aau;  and  accordingly  in 
the  Vulgate  they  are  rendered,  "ita  et  isti  nunc  non  credide- 
runt  in  vestram  misericordiam."  And  Luther  translates, 
"  And  these  now  have  not  chosen  to  believe  the  mercy  which 
you  have  accepted  or  experienced."  Calvin:  "Si  nunc  in- 
creduli  facti  sunt,  eo  quod  adepti  estis  misericordiam,"  {because 
ye  have  obtained  mercy.)  Lachmann,  in  his  edition  of  the 
Greek  Testament,  adopts  the  same  construction,  putting  a 
comma  after  iXeec.  The  parallelism  of  the  verse,  and  the 
obvious  antithesis  between  i/Jec  and  dnec&eia,  [your  mercy  and 
their  unbelief.)  demand  the  other  mode  of  explanation.  This 
trajection  of  the  particle  lua  is  not  unusual.  For  the  sake  of 
emphasis,  some  clause  or  word  is  placed  before,  when  its 
logical  position  would  be  after  the  particle.  See  2  Cor.  ii.  4, 
zr^v  aydTffjV  "tva  yvcozs. 

Verse  32.  I^or  God  hath  concluded  all  in  unbelief;  aovxXeuo 
elz,  in  a  literal  or  local  sense,  means,  to  shut  up  together  in  a 
place;  and  metaphorically,  to  deliver  over  to  the  power  of. 
Here  the  idea  is,  that  God,  in  the  dispensation  of  his  provi- 
dence and  grace,  has  so  ordered  things,  that  all,  Gentiles  and 
Jews,  first  the  one,  and  then  the  other,  should  reveal  their  true 
character  as  sinners,  and  stand  out  in  history  confessed  as 
unbelievers.  For  examples  of  a  similar  form  of  expression,  see 
Ps.  xxxi.  8,  "Thou  hast  shut  me  up  {aovexXt:aa<:)  into  the 
hands  of  the  enemy;"  Ps.  Ixxviii.  50,  "He  gave  their  life  over 
(auuixhccrsv)  to  the  pestilence."  Compare  Gal.  iii.  22.  In 
none  of  these  cases   is    the  word  used    simply  declarative! y, 


594  ROMANS  XI.  33—36. 

"  God  declared  them  to  be  unbelievers."  Nor  is  mere  permis- 
sion all  that  is  expressed.  God's  efficiency  or  control  is 
directly  asserted.  God  gave  the  Psalmist  into  the  hands  of 
liis  enemy,  and  he  gave  up  first  the  Gentiles  and  then  the 
Jews,  unto  unbelief.  The  agency  of  God  in  giving  men  up  to 
sin  is  punitive ;  it  is  consistent  with  their  liberty  and  responsi- 
bility, and  with  his  own  holiness.  He  does  not  cause  their  sin, 
but  he  so  orders  his  dispensations,  that  their  sinfulness  is 
revealed,  and  the  mode  of  its  manifestation  determined.  It 
seems  also  to  enter  into  the  design  of  the  apostle  to  show 
that  God  had  dealt  alike  with  Gentile  and  Jew.  They  stood 
on  the  same  ground.  Both  were  dependent  on  sovereign 
mercy.  Both  had  sunk  into  a  state  from  which  the  grace 
of  God  alone  could  save  them.  As  all  were  equally  miserable 
and  helpless,  God  determined  to  have  mercy  upon  all,  and 
to  bring  all,  Jews  as  well  as  Gentiles,  into  the  fold  of  Christ. 

Verses  33 — 36.  The  apostle  having  finished  his  exhibition 
of  the  plan  of  redemption,  having  presented  clearly  the  doc- 
trine of  justification,  sanctification,  the  certainty  of  salvation 
to  all  believers,  election,  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles,  the  present 
rejection  and  final  restoration  of  the  Jews,  in  view  of  all  the 
wonders  and  all  the  glories  of  the  divine  dealings  with  men, 
pours  forth  this  sublime  and  aflfecting  tribute  to  the  wisdom, 
goodness,  and  sovereignty  of  God.  Few  passages,  even  in  the 
Scriptures,  are  to  be  compared  with  this,  in  the  force  with 
which  it  presents  the  idea  that  God  is  all,  and  man  is  nothing. 
It  is  supposed  by  many  that  these  verses  have  reference  to  the 
doctrines  taught  in  the  immediate  context ;  and  that  it  is  the 
wisdom  of  God,  as  displayed  in  the  calling  of  men,  Gentiles 
and  Jews,  which  Paul  here  contemplates.  Others  restrict 
them  still  further  to  the  display  of  the  mercy  of  God,  of  which 
the  apostle  had  just  been  speaking.  But  the  passage  should 
be  applied  to  that  to  which  it  is  most  naturally  applicable. 
The  question  is,  what  called  forth  these  admiring  views  of  the 
dispensations  of  God?  The  truth  that  he  would  ultimately 
restore  his  ancient  people?  or  the  whole  exhibition  of  the 
economy  of  redemption  ?  As  the  passage  occurs  at  the  close 
of  this  exhibition,  as  it  expresses  precisely  the  feelings  which  it 
might  be  expected  to  produce,  and  as  there  is  nothing  to  restrict 


ROMANS  XI.  33.  595 

it  to  the  immediate  context,  it  is  most  natural  to  consider  it  as 
referring  to  all  that  the  apostle  had  hitherto  taught. 

The  principal  ideas  presented  in  this  passage  are,  1.  The 
incomprehensible  character  and  infinite  excellence  of  the  divine 
nature  and  dispensations,  ver.  38.  2.  God's  entire  independ- 
ence of  man,  vs.  34,  35.  3.  His  comprehending  all  things 
within  himself;  being  the  source,  the  means,  and  the  end  of 
all,  ver.  35. 

Vekse  33.  0  the  depth  of  the  riches  both  of  the  wisdom  and 
knowledge  of  God!  How  unsearchable  are  his  judgments,  and 
his  toays  past  finding  out.  There  are  two  methods  of  interpret- 
ing these  words.  First,  the  three  genitives,  Ttlobrou,  aoifia^, 
yucoffeco^,  may  stand  in  the  same  relation  to  ^dd-o;;.  0  the 
depth  of  the  riches,  and  of  the  wisdom,  and  of  the  knowledge 
of  God.  Or  Tiko'jTou  may  qualify  i3dd-o^,  0  the  depth  of  the 
riches,  (the  inexhaustible,  or  inconceivable,  depth)  both  of  the 
wisdom  and  knowledge  of  God.  So  far  as  commentators  are 
concerned,  they  are  about  equally  divided  as  to  these  explana- 
tions. If  the  former  method  be  adopted,  riches  may  be  under- 
stood to  refer  specially  to  the  mercy  or  goodness  of  God,  2,  4, 
10,  12 ;  or,  to  his  resources  in  general.  '  How  inconceivable 
are  the  resources  of  God,'  i.  e.,  his  plenitude  of  perfections  and 
of  means.  If  the  latter,  then  it  refers  simply  to  the  inconceiv- 
ableness  of  God's  wisdom  and  knowledge.  As,  however,  the 
grace  of  God  is  not  only  prominently  presented  throughout  the 
epistle,  but  is  specially  referred  to  as  an  object  of  admiration 
in  these  verses,  the  former  explanation  is  on  the  whole  to  be 
preferred.  Although  it  is  not  probable  that,  in  such  a  pas- 
sage, every  word  was  designed  to  be  taken  in  a  very  precise 
and  definite  sense,  yet  it  is  likely  that  Paul  meant  to  express 
difi'erent  ideas  by  the  terms  wisdom  and  knowledge,  because 
both  are  so  wonderfully  displayed  in  the  work  of  redemption, 
of  which  he  had  been  speaking.  All-comprehending  know- 
ledge, which  surveyed  all  the  subjects  of  this  work,  all  the 
necessities  and  circumstances  of  their  being,  all  the  means 
requisite  for  the  accomplishment  of  the  divine  purpose,  and  all 
the  results  of  those  means  from  the  beginning  to  the  end. 
Infinite  wisdom,  in  selecting  and  adapting  the  means  to  the 
object  in  view,  in  the  ordering  of  the  whole  scheme  of  creation, 


596  ROMANS  XI.  34,  35. 

providence  and  redemption,  so  that  the  glory  of  God,  and  the 
happiness  of  his  creatures  are,  and  are  to  be,  so  wonderfully 
promoted.  His  judgments,  xa  xpiiiara  aorou,  may  be  under- 
stood in  the  wide  sense,  his  decisions,  i.  e.,  his  purposes,  or 
decrees ;  or  in  the  more  restricted  and  proper  sense,  his  judicial 
decisions,  his  judgments  concerning  men ;  or  it  may  refer  to  his 
providential  judgments  or  dispensations,  and  be  perfectly  par- 
allel with  al  oldoe  auTOU,  his  ivays.  As  of  old,  the  ruler  was 
also  the  judge — to  judge  often  means  to  rule — and  the  same 
word  is  used  for  the  decisions  of  the  judge  and  the  decrees  or 
ordinances  of  the  ruler.  In  this  case,  however,  as  Paul  dis- 
tinguishes between  wisdom  and  knowledge,  so  it  is  better  to 
retain  the  shade  of  distinction  between  judgments  and  ways. 
The  former  are  dve^epeuDrjza,  incapable  of  being  investigated  as 
to  their  grounds  or  reasons ;  the  latter  are  dve^cyyiaaroc,  impos- 
sible to  trace,  (from  J';fvoc,  footprint.)  We  can  only  wonder  and 
adore.  We  can  never  understand.  And  it  is  well  that  it  is  so. 
What  can  be  understood  must  be  limited.  What  is  fully  com- 
prehended no  longer  exercises,  excites,  or  enlarges.  It  is 
because  God  is  infinite  in  his  being,  and  incomprehensible  in 
his  judgments  and  in  his  ways,  that  he  is  an  inexhaustible 
source  of  knowledge  and  blessedness. 

Yerse  34.  For  who  hath  known  the  mind  of  the  Lord?  or, 
who  hath  been  his  counsellor?  This  verse  is  designed  to  con- 
firm what  is  said  in  ver.  33.  These  clauses  may  be  taken  as 
synonymous,  or  the  first  may  refer  to  God's  judgments,  and  the 
second,  to  his  ways.  Who  hath  known  what  God  designed  to 
do,  and  the  reasons  of  his  decrees  ?  and,  Who  hath  counselled 
him  as  to  the  mode  of  their  execution  ?  In  his  purposes  and 
his  dispensations  he  is  equally  and  perfectly  independent, 
infinitely  exalted  above  the  supervision  or  direction  of  his 
creatures. 

Verse  35.  Or  who  hath  first  given  to  him,  and  it  shall  he 
recompensed  to  him  again  ?  This  is  not  to  be  confined  to 
giving  counsel  or  knowledge  to  God,  but  expresses  the  general 
idea  that  the  creature  can  do  nothing  to  place  God  under  obli- 
gation. It  will  be  at  once  perceived  how  appropriate  is  this 
thought,  in  reference  to  the  doctrines  which  Paul  had  been 
teaching.     Men  are  justified,  not  on  the  ground  of  their  own 


ROMANS  XI.  36.  597 

merit,  but  of  the  merit  of  Christ ;  they  are  sanctified,  not  by 
the  power  of  their  own  good  purposes,  and  the  strength  of  their 
own  will,  but  by  the  Spirit  of  God ;  they  are  chosen  and  called 
to  eternal  life,  not  on  the  ground  of  anything  in  them,  but 
according  to  the  purpose  of  him  who  worketh  all  things  after 
the  counsel  of  his  own  will.  God,  therefore,  is  the  Alpha  and 
the  Omeo-a  of  salvation.  The  creature  has  neither  merit  nor 
power.  His  hopes  must  rest  on  sovereign  mercy  alone.  There 
is  a  correspondence  between  the  several  clauses  in  these  verses. 
'Who  hath  given  to  God,'  refers  to  the  plenitude  and  sove- 
reignty of  his  grace,  (the  ^u&oc;  nkoozoo) ;  '  Who  hath  known 
the  mind  of  the  Lord?'  to  his  unsearchable  knowledge;  and 
'Who  hath  been  his  counsellor?'  to  his  infinite  wisdom.  This 
was  remarked  long  ago.  Thus  Theodoret  says :  rd  zpla  raora 
Ttpb^  rd  rpia  zi&sas,  rbv  ttXoutov  xa'c  ttju  aociav  xai  tTjV  j-'^cdaiu- 
TO  fjLsv  tiQ  iyiico  i^ouu  xopiou  TCftde;  ttjv  yvcoaiv^  rb  dk  r^c  aup^ouXoz 
abrou  lyivsto  Ttpb^  ttju  aocpcau,  to  de  Tt:;  Ttpoidwxev  auT(p  xai 
diVTaTto&rjatTae  Tipbi;  Tbv  ixXoutov. 

Verse  36.  For  of  him,  and  through  him,  and  to  him,  are  all 
things;  to  whom  he  glory  for  ever.  Amen.  The  reason  why 
man  can  lay  God  under  no  obligation,  is,  that  God  is  himself  all 
and  in  all ;  the  source,  the  means,  and  the  end.  By  him  all 
things  are ;  through  his  power,  wisdom,  and  goodness,  all  things 
are  directed  and  governed ;  and  to  him,  as  their  last  end,  all 
things  tend.  The  prepositions  kx,  did,  ec<;,  here  used,  indicate 
that  God  is  the  source,  the  constantly  working  cause,  and  end 
of  all  things.  Among  the  fathers,  it  was  a  common  opinion 
that  the  apostle  had  reference  to  the  Trinity,  and  intended  in 
these  words  to  indicate  the  relation  of  all  things  to  the  several 
persons  of  the  Godhead.  All  things  are  of  the  Father,  through 
the  Son,  and  to  the  Spirit.  So  Tholuck  and  Olshausen.  To 
this,  however,  it  is  objected,  that  such  reference  is  not 
demanded  by  the  context,  and  that  the  Spirit's  relation  to 
what  is  out  of  himself  is  expressed  by  iu,  not  by  £c<;.  Compare 
Eph.  iv.  6.  It  is  God  as  God,  the  Godhead,  and  not  the 
persons  of  the  Trinity  in  their  distinct  relations,  that  is  here 
brought  into  view.  When  Paul  asks,  Who  hath  first  given  to 
God  ?  the  answer  is.  No  one,  for  of  him,  throunh  him,  and  to 
him,  are  all  things.    It  is  for  the  display  of  his  character  every 


598  ROMANS  XI.  11—36. 

thing  exists,  and  is  directed,  as  the  highest  and  noblest  of  all 
possible  objects.  Creatures  are  as  nothing,  less  than  vanity 
and  nothing  in  comparison  with  God.  Human  knowledge, 
power,  and  virtue,  are  mere  glimmering  reflections  from  the 
brightness  of  the  divine  glory.  That  system  of  religion,  there- 
fore, is  best  in  accordance  with  the  character  of  God,  the 
nature  of  man,  and  the  end  of  the  universe,  in  which  all  things 
are  of,  through,  and  to  God ;  and  which  most  effectually  leads 
men  to  say,  NOT  UNTO  US,  BUT  UNTO  THY  NAME  BE  ALL  THE 
GLORY ! 

Such  is  the  appropriate  conclusion  of  the  doctrinal  portion  of 
this  wonderful  epistle ;  in  which  more  fully  and  clearly  than  in 
any  other  portion  of  the  word  of  God,  the  plan  of  salvation  is 
presented  and  defended.  Here  are  the  doctrines  of  grace; 
doctrines  on  which  the  pious  in  all  ages  and  nations  have  rested 
their  hopes  of  heaven,  though  they  may  have  had  compara- 
tively obscure  intimations  of  their  nature.  The  leading  prin- 
ciple of  all  is,  that  God  is  the  source  of  all  good ;  that  in  fallen 
man  there  is  neither  merit  nor  ability;  that  salvation,  conse- 
quently, is  all  of  grace,  as  well  sanctification  as  pardon,  as  well 
election  as  eternal  glory.  For  of  him,  and  through  him,  and 
to  him,  are  all  things ;  to  whom  be  glory  for  ever.    Amen. 

DOCTRINE. 

1.  There  is  to  be  a  general  conversion  of  the  Jews,  concern- 
ing which  the  apostle  teaches  us,  1.  That  it  is  to  be  in  some 
way  consequent  on  the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles,  vs.  11 — 31. 
2.  That  it  will  be  attended  with  the  most  important  and 
desirable  results  for  the  rest  of  the  world,  vs.  12,  15.  3.  That 
it  is  to  take  place  after  the  fulness  of  the  Gentiles  is  brought 
in ;  that  is,  after  the  conversion  of  multitudes  of  the  Gentiles, 
(how  many,  who  can  tell?)  ver.  25.  Nothing  is  said  of  this 
restoration  being  sudden,  or  eifected  by  miracle,  or  consequent 
on  the  second  advent,  or  as  attended  by  a  restoration  of  the 
Jews  to  their  own  land.  These  particulars  have  all  been  added 
by  some  commentators,  either  from  their  own  imagination,  or 
from  their  views  of  other  portions  of  the  Scriptures.  They  are 
not  taught  by  the  apostle.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  through  the 
mercy  shown  to  the  Gentiles,  according  to  Paul,  that  the  Jews 


ROMANS  XI.  11—36.  599 

are  to  be  brought  in,  which  implies  that  the  former  are  to  be 
instrumental  in  the  restoration  of  the  latter.  And  he  every- 
where teaches,  that  within  the  church  the  distinction  between 
Jew  and  Gentile  ceases.  In  Christ  there  is  neither  Jew  nor 
Greek,  Barbarian  nor  Scythian,  bond  nor  free,  Col.  iii.  11 ;  all 
classes  are  merged  in  one,  as  was  the  case  under  the  direction 
of  the  apostles  in  the  first  ages  of  the  church. 

2.  The  church  of  God  is  the  same  in  all  ages  and  under  all 
dispensations.  It  is  the  society  of  the  true  people  of  God, 
together  with  their  children.  To  this  society  the  ancient 
patriarchs  and  their  posterity  belonged ;  into  this  society,  at 
the  time  of  Christ,  other  nations  were  admitted,  and  the  great 
body  of  the  Jews  were  cast  out,  and  into  this  same  community 
the  ancient  people  of  God  are  to  be  again  received.  In  every 
stage  of  its  progress,  the  church  is  the  same.  The  olive-tree 
is  one,  though  the  branches  are  numerous,  and  sometimes 
changed,  vs.  17 — 24. 

3.  The  web  of  Providence  is  wonderfully  woven.  Good  and 
evil  are  made  with  equal  certainty,  under  the  government  of 
infinite  wisdom  and  benevolence,  to  result  in  the  promotion 
of  God's  gracious  and  glorious  designs.  The  wicked  unbelief 
and  consequent  rejection  of  the  Jews,  are  made  the  means 
of  facilitating  the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles ;  the  holy  faith 
and  obedience  of  the  Gentiles,  are  to  be  the  means  of  the 
restoration  of  the  Jews,  vs.  11,  31. 

4.  All  organized  communities,  civil  and  ecclesiastical,  have  a 
common  responsibility,  a  moral  personality  in  the  sight  of  God, 
and  are  dealt  Avith  accordingly,  rewarded  or  punished  according 
to  their  conduct,  as  such.  As  their  organized  existence  is  con- 
fined to  this  world,  so  must  the  retributive  dispensations  of  God 
respecting  them  be.  Witness  the  rejection,  dispersion,  and 
suiferings  of  the  Jews,  as  a  national  punishment  for  their 
national  rejection  of  the  Messiah.  Witness  the  state  of  all 
the  eastern  churches  broken  ofi"  from  the  olive-tree  for  the 
unbelief  of  former  generations.  Their  fathers  sinned,  and  their 
children's  children,  to  the  third  and  fourth  generation,  suffer 
the  penalty,  as  they  share  in  the  guilt,  vs.  11 — 24. 

5.  The  security  of  every  individual  Christian  is  suspended 
on  his  continuing  in  faith  and  holy  obedience;  which  is  indeed 


600  ROMANS  XI.  11—36. 

rendered  certain  by  the  purpose  and  promise  of  God.  In  like 
manner,  the  security  of  every  civil  and  ecclesiastical  society,  in 
the  enjoyment  of  its  peculiar  advantages,  is  suspended  on  its 
fidelity  as  such,  for  which  fidelity  there  is  no  special  promise 
with  regard  to  any  country  or  any  church,  vs.  20 — 24. 

6.  God  does  sometimes  enter  into  covenant  with  communities, 
as  such.  Thus  he  has  covenanted  with  the  whole  human 
race  that  the  world  shall  not  be  again  destroyed  by  a  deluge, 
and  that  the  seasons  shall  continue  to  succeed  each  other,  in 
regular  order,  until  the  end  of  time.  Thus  he  covenanted  with 
the  Jews  to  be  a  God  to  them  and  to  their  seed  for  ever,  and 
that  they  should  be  to  him  a  people.  This,  it  seems,  is  a  per- 
petual covenant,  which  continues  in  force  until  the  present  day, 
and  which  renders  certain  the  restoration  of  the  Jews  to  the 
privileges  of  the  church  of  God,  vs.  16,  28,  29. 

7.  It  is  the  radical  principle  of  the  Bible,  and  consequently 
of  all  true  religion,  that  God  is  all  and  in  all ;  that  of  him,  and 
through  him,  and  to  him,  are  all  things.  It  is  the  tendency  of 
all  truth  to  exalt  God,  and  to  humble  the  creature ;  and  it  is 
characteristic  of  true  piety  to  feel  that  all  good  comes  from 
God,  and  to  desire  that  all  glory  should  be  given  to  God, 
vs.  33—36. 

KEMAKKS. 

1.  The  mutual  relation  between  the  Christian  church  and  the 
Jews  should  produce  in  the  minds  of  all  the  followers  of  Christ, 

1.  A  deep  sense  of  our  obligations  to  the  Jews  as  the  people 
through  whom  the  true  religion  has  been  preserved,  and  the 
blessings  of  divine  truth  extended  to  all  nations,  vs.  IT,  18. 

2.  Sincere  compassion  for  them,  because  their  rejection  and 
misery  have  been  the  means  of  reconciling  the  world  to  God, 
i.  e.,  of  extending  the  gospel  of  reconciliation  among  men, 
vs.  11,  12,  15.  3.  The  banishment  of  all  feelings  of  contempt 
towards  them,  or  exultation  over  them,  vs.  18,  20.  4.  An 
earnest  desire,  prompting  to  prayer  and  effort,  for  their  restora- 
tion, as  an  event  fraught  with  blessings  to  them  and  to  all  the 
world,  and  one  which  God  has  determined  to  bring  to  pass, 
vs.  12,  15,  25,  &c. 

2.  The  dealings  of  God  with   his   ancient    people    should, 


KOMANS  XI.  11—36.  601 

moreover,  teach  us,  1.  That  we  have  no  security  for  the  con- 
tinuance of  our  privileges  but  constant  fidelity,  ver.  20. 
2.  That,  consequently,  instead  of  being  proud  and  self-con- 
fident, we  should  be  humble  and  cautious,  vs.  20,  21.  3.  That 
God  will  probably  not  bear  with  us  as  long  as  he  bore  with  the 
Jews,  ver.  21.  4.  That  if  for  our  unbelief  we  are  cast  out  of 
the  church,  our  punishment  will  probably  be  more  severe. 
There  is  no  special  covenant  securing  the  restoration  of  any 
apostate  branch  of  the  Christian  church,  vs.  21,  24,  with  16, 
2T— 29. 

3.  It  is  a  great  blessing  to  be  connected  with  those  who  are 
in  covenant  with  God.  The  promise  is  "to  thee  and  thy  seed 
after  thee."  "The  Lord  thy  God,  he  is  God,  the  faithful  God, 
which  keepeth  covenant  and  mercy  with  them  that  love  him 
and  keep  his  commandments,  to  a  thousand  generations,"  Deut. 
vii.  9.  The  blessing  of  Abraham  reaches,  in  some  of  its 
precious  consequences,  to  the  Jews  of  this  and  every  coming 
age,  vs.  16,  27—29. 

4.  The  destiny  of  our  children  and  our  children's  children  is 
suspended,  in  a  great  measure,  on  our  fidelity.  "  God  is  a  jeal- 
ous God,  visiting  the  iniquities  of  the  fathers  upon  the  children 
unto  the  third  and  foufth  generation  of  them  that  hate  him." 
What  words  of  woe  for  unborn  thousands,  were  those,  "His 
blood  be  on  us  and  on  our  children!"  As  the  Jews  of  the  pre- 
sent age  are  sufi'ering  the  consequences  of  the  unbelief  of  their 
fathers,  and  the  nominal  Christians  of  the  eastern  churches 
suffer  for  the  apostacy  of  previous  generations,  so  will  our 
children  perish,  if  we,  for  our  unbelief  as  a  church  and  nation, 
are  cast  off  from  God,  vs.  19 — 24. 

5.  As  the  restoration  of  the  Jews  is  not  only  a  most  desirable 
event,  but  one  which  God  has  determined  to  accomplish.  Chris- 
tians should  keep  it  constantly  in  view  even  in  their  labours  for 
the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles.  This  Paul  did,  vs.  13,  14. 
Every  effort  to  hasten  the  accession  of  the  fulness  of  the  Gen- 
tiles is  so  much  done  towards  the  restoration  of  Israel,  ver.  25. 

6.  Christians  should  not  feel  as  though  they  were  isolated 
beings,  as  if  each  one  need  be  concerned  for  himself  alone, 
having  no  joint  responsibility  with  the  community  to  which  he 
belongs.     God   will   deal   with  our  church  and  country  as  a 


602  ROMANS  XII.  1. 

whole,  and  visit  our  sins  upon  those  who  are  to  come  after  us. 
"We  should  feel,  therefore,  that  we  are  one  body,  members  one 
of  another,  having  common  interests  and  responsibilities.  We 
ought  to  weep  over  the  sins  of  the  community  to  which  we 
belong,  as  being  in  one  sense,  and  in  many  of  their  conse- 
quences, our  sins,  vs.  11 — 24. 

7.  As  the  gifts  and  calling  of  Ood  are  without  repentance, 
those  to  whom  he  has  given  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  has  called 
unto  holiness,  may  rejoice  in  the  certainty  of  the  continuance 
of  these  blessings,  ver.  29. 

8.  Does  the  contemplation  of  the  work  of  redemption,  and 
the  remembrance  of  our  own  experience,  lead  us  to  sympathize 
with  the  apostle  in  his  adoring  admiration  of  the  wisdom  and 
goodness  of  God,  and  feel  that,  as  it  regards  our  salvation, 
everything  is  of  him,  and  through  him,  and  to  him  ?  vs.  33 — 36. 

9.  As  it  is  the  tendency  and  result  of  all  correct  views  of 
Christian  doctrine  to  produce  the  feelings  expressed  by  the 
apostle  at  the  close  of  this  chapter,  those  views  cannot  be  scrip- 
tural which  have  a  contrary  tendency;  or  which  lead  us  to 
ascribe,  in  any  form,  our  salvation  to  our  own  merit  or  power, 
vs.  83—36. 


CHAPTER    XII. 


CONTENTS. 

This  chapter  consists  of  two  parts.  The  first,  vs.  1 — 8,  treats 
of  piety  towards  God,  and  the  proper  estimation  and  use  of  the 
various  gifts  and  offices  employed  or  exercised  in  the  church. 
The  second,  vs.  9 — 21,  relates  to  love  and  its  various  manifes- 
tations towards  different  classes  of  men. 


ROMANS   XII.  1—8. 

ANALYSIS. 

As  the  apostle  had  concluded  the  doctrinal  portion  of  the 
epistle  with  the   preceding   chapter,   in  accordance   with   his 


ROMANS  XIL  1.  603 

almost  uniform  practice,  he  deduces  from  his  doctrines  import- 
ant practical  lessons.  The  first  deduction  from  the  exhibition 
which  he  had  made  of  the  mercy  of  God  in  the  redemption  of 
men,  is  that  they  should  devote  themselves  to  him  as  a  living 
sacrifice,  and  be  conformed  to  his  will  and  not  to  the  manners 
of  the  world,  vs.  1,  2.  The  second  is,  that  they  should  be 
humble,  and  not  allow  the  diversity  of  their  gifts  to  destroy  the 
sense  of  their  unity  as  one  body  in  Christ,  vs.  3 — 5.  These 
various  gifts  were  to  be  exercised,  not  for  selfish  purposes,  but 
in  a  manner  consistent  with  their  nature  and  design ;  diligently, 
disinterestedly,  and  kindly,  vs.  6 — 8. 

COMMENTARY. 

Verse  1.  /  beseech  you,  therefore,  brethren,  by  the  mercies 
of  Gfod,  &c.  As  the  sum  of  all  that  Paul  had  said  of  the  justi- 
fication, sanctification,  and  salvation  of  men  is,  that  these 
results  are  to  be  attributed  not  to  human  merit  nor  to  human 
efi"orts,  but  to  the  mercy  of  God,  he  brings  the  whole  discussion 
to  bear  as  a  motive  for  devotion  to  God.  Whatever  gratitude 
the  soul  feels  for  pardon,  purity,  and  the  sure  prospect  of  eter- 
nal life,  is  called  forth  to  secure  its  consecration  to  that  God 
who  is  the  author  of  all  these  mercies. 

That  ye  'present  your  bodies  a  living  sacrifice,  holy,  accept- 
able unto  God.  All  the  expressions  of  this  clause  seem  to 
have  an  obvious  reference  to  the  services  of  the  Old  Testament 
economy.  Under  that  dispensation,  animals  free  from  blemish 
were  presented  and  devoted  to  God;  under  the  new  dispensa- 
tion a  nobler  and  more  spiritual  service  is  to  be  rendered ;  not 
the  oblation  of  animals,  but  the  consecration  of  ourselves.  The 
expression,  your  bodies,  is  perhaps  nearly  equivalent  to  your- 
selves; yet  Paul  probably  used  it  with  design,  not  only  because 
it  was  appropriate  to  the  figure,  but  because  he  wished  to  ren- 
der the  idea  prominent,  that  the  whole  man,  body  as  well  as 
soul,  was  to  be  devoted  to  the  service  of  God.  "Ye  are  bought 
with  a  price ;  therefore  glorify  God  in  your  body,  and  in  your 
spirit,  which  are  God's,"  1  Cor.  vi.  20.  The  apostle  carries 
the  figure  out ;  the  sacrifice  is  to  be  living,  holy  and  acceptable. 
The  first  of  these  epithets  is  generally  considered  as  intended 
to  express  the  contrast  between  the  sacrifice  here  intended,  and 


604  EOMANS  XII.  1. 

the  victims  which  were  placed  lifeless  upon  the  altar;  thus 
believers,  in  1  Peter  ii.  5,  are  called  "living  stones,"  in  oppo- 
sition to  the  senseless  materials.employed  in  a  literal  building. 
We  are  to  present  d^oaiav  ^ojaav,  a  sacrifice  that  lives.  "  Abomi- 
nabile  est,  cadaver  offere." — Bengel.  The  word  living,  how- 
ever, may  mean  perpetual,  lasting,  never  neglected;  as  in  the 
phrases,  "living  bread,"  John  vi.  51,  'bread  which  never 
looses  its  power;'  "living  hope,"  1  Peter  i.  3,  'hope  which 
never  fails;'  "living  waters,"  "a  living  way,"  &ic. ;  (see 
WaMs  Lexicon,  under  the  word  ^da).')  The  sacrifice  then 
which  we  are  to  make  is  not  a  transient  service,  like  the  obla- 
tion of  a  victim,  which  was  in  a  few  moments  consumed  upon 
the  altar,  but  it  is  a  living  or  perpetual  sacrifice  never  to  be 
neglected  or  recalled.  The  epithet  holy  has  probably  direct 
reference  to  the  frequent  use  of  a  nearly  corresponding  word 
(iD'i>3Pi)  in  the  Hebrew  scriptures,  which,  when  applied  to  sacri- 
fices, is  commonly  rendered  without  blemish.  The  word  holy  is 
then  in  this  case  equivalent  to  immaculate,  i.  e.,  free  from  those 
defects  which  would  cause  an  offering  to  be  rejected.  The 
term  acceptable  is  here  used  in  the  same  sense  as  the  phrase 
"for  a  sweet  smelling  savour,"  Eph.  v.  2,  Phil.  iv.  18,  Lev.  i.  9, 
i.  e.,  grateful,  well-pleasing  ;  a  sacrifice  in  which  God  delights. 
T(jj  dsaj  is  to  be  connected  with  eudpeatov  and  not  with 
TtapaazY^aajL. 

Your  reasonable  service.  There  is  doubt  as  to  the  gram- 
matical construction  of  this  clause.  The  most  natural  and 
simple  explanation  is  to  consider  it  in  apposition  with  the  pre- 
ceding member  of  the  sentence,  as  has  been  done  by  our  trans- 
lators, who  supply  the  words  which  is.  This  consecration  of 
ourselves  to  God,  which  the  apostle  requires,  is  a  reasonable 
service.  The  word  Xajpsia  does  not  mean  an  offering,  but 
worship.  It  is  not  the  thing  offered  that  is  said  to  be  reason- 
able in  the  sense  of,  endowed  with  reason,  but  the  nature  of  the 
service.  It  is  rendered  by  the  mind.  The  word  [Xoyarjv)  ren- 
dered reasonable,  is  indeed  variously  explained.  The  simplest 
interpretation  is  that  which  takes  the  word  in  its  natural  sense, 
viz.,  pertaining  to  the  mind;  it  is  a  mental  or  spiritual  service, 
in  opposition  to  ceremonial  and  external  observances.  Com- 
pare the  phrase  [Xoycxou  ydXa),  'milk  suited,  or  pertaining  to 


ROMANS  XII.  2.  605 

the  mind.'  1  Peter  ii.  2.  Others  understand  these  words  as 
expressing  the  difference  between  the  sacrifices  under  the 
Christian  dispensation  and  those  under  the  Old.  Formerly 
animals  destitute  of  reason  [akoya  (^oia)  were  offered  unto  God, 
but  now  men  possessed  of  a  rational  soul.  But  this  interpreta- 
tion is  neither  so  well  suited  to  the  meaning  of  the  word,  nor 
does  it  give  a  sense  so  consistent  with  the  context ;  compare 
1  Peter  ii.  5. 

Verse  2.  And  be  not  conformed  to  this  world,  but  be  ye 
transformed  by  the  renewing  of  your  mind,  &c.  Not  only  is 
God  to  be  worshipped  in  spirit  and  in  truth,  as  required  in  the 
preceding  verse,  but  there  must  be  a  corresponding  holiness  of 
life.  This  idea  is  expressed  in  the  manner  most  common  with 
the  sacred  writers.  Regarding  men  universally  as  corrupted 
and  devoted  to  sin,  the  world  is  with  them  equivalent  to  the 
tvicked;  to  be  conformed  to  the  world,  therefore,  is  to  be  like 
unrenewed  men  in  temper  and  in  life.  The  word  accurately 
rendered  conformed,  expresses  strongly  the  idea  of  similarity 
in  character  and  manners;  and  that  rendered  transformed 
expresses  with  equal  strength  the  opposite  idea.  This  world. 
The  origin  of  this  term,  as  used  in  the  New  Testament,  is  no 
doubt  to  be  sought  in  the  mode  of  expression  so  common 
among  the  Jews,  who  were  accustomed  to  distinguish  between 
the  times  before,  and  the  times  under  the  Messiah,  by  calling 
the  former  period  this  world,  or  this  age,  (nrn  QbiS")  and  the 
latter,  the  world,  or  age  to  come  (j«|in  bins).  The  former  phrase 
thus  naturally  came  to  designate  those  who  were  without,  and 
the  latter  those  who  were  within  the  kingdom  of  Christ ;  they 
are  equivalent  to  the  expressions  the  world  and  the  church; 
the  mass  of  mankind  and  the  people  of  God;  compare  1  Cor. 
ii.  8,  Eph.  ii.  2,  2  Cor.  iv.  4,  Luke  xx.  35,  Heb.  ii.  5,  vi.  5. 
There  is,  therefore,  no  necessity  for  supposing,  as  is  done  by 
many  commentators,  that  the  apostle  has  any  special  reference, 
in  the  use  of  this  word,  to  the  Jewish  dispensation ;  as  though  his 
meaning  were,  '  Be  not  conformed  to  the  Jewish  opinions  and 
forms  of  worship,  but  be  transformed  and  accommodated  to  the 
new  spiritual  economy  under  which  ye  are  placed.'  The  word 
[aciou)  here  used,  and  the  equivalent  term  [xoafioi;)  commonly 
translated  world,  are  so  frequently  used  for  the  mass  of  man- 


606  ROMANS  XII.  3. 

kind,  considered  in  opposition  to  the  people  of  God,  that  there 
can  be  no  good  reason  for  departing  from  the  common  interpre- 
tation, especially  as  the  sense  which  it  affords  is  so  good  in 
itself,  and  so  well  suited  to  the  context. 

By  the  renewing  of  your  mind.  This  phrase  is  intended  to 
be  explanatory  of  the  preceding.  The  transformation  to  which 
Christians  are  exhorted,  is  not  a  mere  external  change,  but  one 
which  results  from  a  change  of  heart,  an  entire  alteration  of 
the  state  of  the  mind.  The  word  voyc,  mind,  is  used  as  it  is 
here,  frequently  in  the  New  Testament,  Rom.  i.  28,  Eph.  iv.  17, 
23,  Col.  ii.  18,  &c.  In  all  these  and  in  similar  cases,  it  does  not 
differ  from  the  word  heart,  i.  e.,  in  its  wide  sense  for  the 
whole  soul. 

That  ye  may  he  able  to  prove  what  is  that  good  and  acceptable 
and  perfect  ivill  of  G-od.  The  logical  relation  of  this  clause  to 
the  preceding  is  doubtful,  as  the  original  {dz  to  doxt/Jid^ecu) 
admits  of  its  being  regarded  as  expressing  either  the  design  or 
the  result  of  the  change  just  spoken  of.  Our  translators  have 
adopted  the  former  view,  'Ye  are  renewed,  in  order  that  ye 
may  be  able  to  prove,  &c.'  The  other,  however,  gives  an 
equally  good  sense,  'Ye  are  renewed  so  that  ye  prove,  &c.;' 
such  is  the  effect  of  the  change  in  question.  The  word  ren- 
dered to  prove,  signifies  also  to  approve;  the  sense  of  this 
passage,  therefore,  may  be  either,  '  that  ye  may  try  or  prove 
what  is  acceptable  to  God,'  i.  e.,  decide  upon  or  ascertain  what 
is  right;  or,  'that  ye  may  approve  what  is  good,  &c.'  The 
words  good,  acceptable,  and  perfect,  are  by  many  considered  as 
predicates  of  the  word  will.  As,  however,  the  expression 
'acceptable  will  of  God'  is  unnatural  and  unusual,  the  majority 
of  modern  commentators,  after  Erasmus,  take  them  as  substan- 
tives; 'that  ye  may  approve  what  is  good,  acceptable,  and 
perfect,  viz.,  the  will  of  God.'  The  last  phrase  is  then  in  appo- 
sition with  the  others.  The  design  and  result  then  of  that  great 
change  of  which  Paul  speaks,  is,  that  Christians  should  know, 
delight  in,  and  practise,  whatever  is  good  and  acceptable  to 
God ;  compare  Eph.  v.  10,  17,  Phil.  iv.  8. 

Verse  3.  For  I  say,  through  the  grace  given  unto  me,  to 
every  man  that  is  among  you,  not  to  think  of  himself  more 
highly  than  he  ought  to  think,  &c.     The  apostle  connects  with 


ROMANS  XII.  3.  607 

the  general  exhortation  contained  in  the  preceding  verses,  and 
founds  upon  it,  an  exhortation  to  special  Christian  virtues. 
The  first  virtue  which  he  enjoins  upon  believers  is  modesty  or 
humility.  This  has  reference 'specially  to  the  officers  of  the 
church,  or  at  least  to  the  recipients  of  spiritual  gifts.  It  is 
very  evident  from  1  Cor.  xii.  and  xiv.,  that  these  gifts  were 
coveted  and  exercised  by  many  of  the  early  Christians  for  the 
purpose  of  self-exaltation.  They,  therefore,  desired  not  those 
which  were  most  useful,  but  those  which  were  most  attractive; 
and  some  were  puifed  up,  while  others  were  envious  and  dis- 
contented. This  evil  the  apostle  forcibly  and  beautifully 
reproved  in  the  chapters  referred  to,  in  the  same  manner  that 
he  does  here,  and  much  more  at  length.  He  showed  his 
readers  that  these  gifts  were  all  gratuitous,  and  were,  therefore, 
occasions  of  gratitude,  but  not  grounds  of  boasting.  He 
reminds  his  readers  that  the  design  for  which  these  gifts  were 
bestowed,  was  the  edification  of  the  church,  and  not  the  exalta- 
tion of  the  receiver;  that,  however  diversified  in  their  nature, 
they  were  all  manifestations  of  one  and  the  same  Spirit,  and 
were  as  necessary  to  a  perfect  whole  as  the  several  members 
of  the  body,  with  their  various  offices,  to  a,  perfect  man. 
Having  one  Spirit,  and  constituting  one  body,  any  exaltation 
of  one  over  the  other  was  as  unnatural  as  the  eye  or  ear  dis- 
regarding and  despising  the  hand  or  the  foot.  As  this 
tendency  to  abuse  their  official  and  spiritual  distinctions  was 
not  confined  to  the  Corinthian  Christians,  we  find  the  apostle, 
in  this  passage,  giving  substantially  the  same  instructions  to  the 
Romans. 

Through  the  grace  given  unto  me.  The  word  grace  in  this 
clause  is  by  many  understood  to  mean  the  apostolic  office, 
which  Paul  elsewhere  speaks  of  as  a  great  favour.  "  Tantun- 
dem  valent  ejus  verba  acsi  dixisset:  Non  loquor  a  me  ipso,  sed 
legatus  Dei,  quae  mihi  mandata  ille  injunxit,  ad  vos  perfero. 
Gratiam  (ut  prius)  vocat  apostolatum,  quo  Dei  bonitatem  in  eo 
commendet,  ac  simul  innuat,  se  non  irrupisse  propria  temeritate, 
sed  Dei  vocatione  assumptum." — Calvin.  Compare  chap.  i.  5, 
XV.  15,  Eph.  ii.  2,  8.  But  this  is  too  limited;  the  word 
probably  includes  all  the  favour  of  God  towards  him,  not 
merely  in  conferring  on  him  the  office  of  an  apostle,  but  in 


608  ROMANS  XI.  3. 

bestowinga  11  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit,  ordinary  and  extraordinary, 
which  qualified  him  for  his  duties,  and  gave  authority  to  his 
instructions.  Through,  dca,  i.  e.,  on  account  of,  or  out  of 
regard  to. 

Not  to  think  of  himself  more  highly  than  he  ought  to 
think.  The  word  to  think  is  an  inadequate  translation  of  the 
Greek,  [(ppovelu,)  inasmuch  as  the  latter  includes  the  idea  of  the 
exercise  of '  the  afi"ections  as  well  as  of  the  intellect ;  see 
chap.  viii.  5,  Col.  iii.  2,  Phil,  iii,  19.  To  think  of  one-self  too 
highly,  is  to  be  puffed  up  with  an  idea  of  our  own  importance 
and  superiority. 

But  to  think  soberly,  according  as  Cfod  hath  dealt  to  every 
man  the  measure  of  faith.  There  is  in  the  first  member  of  this 
clause  a  beautiful  paranomasia  in  the  original  {<ppoue2u  si^ 
TO  aLOifpovelv)  which  is  lost  in  a  translation.  The  word  ren- 
dered soberly  properly  means  to  be  of  a  sane  mind;  and  then 
to  be  moderate  or  temperate.  Paul  speaks  of  one  who  overesti- 
mates or  praises  himself  as  being  beside  himself;  and  of  him 
who  is  modest  and  humble  as  being  of  a  sane  mind,  i.  e.,  as 
making  a  proper  estimate  of  himself.  "For  whether  we  be 
beside  ourselves,  it  is  to  God ;  or  whether  we  be  sober,  it  is  for 
your  cause,"  2  Cor.  v.  13,  i.  e.,  'If  we  commend  ourselves,  it 
is  that  God  may  be  honoured;  and  if  we  act  modestly  and 
abstain  from  self-commendation,  it  is  that  you  may  be  bene- 
fitted.' To  think  soberly,  therefore,  is  to  form  and  manifest  a 
right  estimate  of  ourselves,  and  of  our  gifts.  A  right  estimate 
can  never  be  other  than  a  very  humble  one,  since,  whatever 
there  is  of  good  in  us  is  not  of  ourselves,  but  of  God. 

The  expression  measure  or  proportion  of  faith,  is  variously 
explained.  Faith  may  be  taken  in  its  usual  sense,  and  the 
meaning  of  the  clause  be,  'Let  every  one  think  of  himself 
according  to  the  degree  of  faith  or  confidence  in  God  which  has 
been  imparted  to  him,  and  not  as  though  he  had  more  than  he 
really  possesses.'  Or  faith  may  be  taken  for  what  is  believed, 
or  for  knowledge  of  divine  truth,  and  the  sense  be,  '  according 
to  the  degree  of  knowledge  which  he  has  attained.'  Or  it  may 
be  taken  for  that  which  is  confided  to  any,  and  be  equivalent 
to  gift.  The  sense  then  is,  '  Let  CA'ery  one  think  of  himself 
according  to  the  nature  or  character  of  the  gifts  which  he  has 


ROMANS  XII.  4,  5.  609 

received."  This  is  perhaps  the  most  generally  received  inter- 
pretation, although  it  is  arrived  at  in  different  ways;  many 
considering  the  woi'd  faith  here  as  used  metonymically  for  its 
effects,  viz.,  for  the  various  {y^afiiapLaza)  graces,  ordinary  and 
extraordinary,  of  which  it  is  the  cause.  This  general  sense  is 
well  suited  to  the  context,  as  the  following  verses,  containing  a 
specification  of  the  gifts  of  prophesying,  teaching,  ruling,  &c., 
appear  to  be  an  amplification  of  this  clause.  The  first  men- 
tioned interpretation  is,  however,  most  in  accordance  with  the 
usual  meaning  of  ncati^. 

Verses  4,  5.  For  as  we  have  many  members  in  one  lody, 
and  all  members  have  not  the  same  office;  so  we,  &c.  In  these 
verses  we  have  the  same  comparison  that  occurs  more  at  length 
in  1  Cor.  xii.,  and  for  the  same  purpose.  The  object  of  the 
apostle  is  in  both  cases  the  same.  He  designs  to  show  that  the 
diversity  of  offices  and  gifts  among  Christians,  so  far  from 
being  inconsistent  with  their  union  as  one  body  in  Christ,  is 
necessary  to  the  perfection  and  usefulness  of  that  body.  It 
would  be  as  unreasonable  for  all  Christians  to  have  the  same 
gifts,  as  for  all  the  members  of  the  human  frame  to  have  the 
same  office.  This  comparison  is  peculiarly  beautiful  and  appro- 
priate ;  because  it  not  only  clearly  illustrates  the  particular 
point  intended,  but  at  the  same  time  brings  into  view  the 
important  truth  that  the  real  union  of  Christians  results  from 
the  indwelling  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  the  union  of  the  several 
members  of  the  body  is  the  result  of  their  being  all  animated 
and  actuated  by  one  soul.  Nothing  can  present  in  a  clearer 
light  the  duty  of  Christian  fellowship,  or  the  sinfulness  of  divi- 
sions and  envyings  among  the  members  of  Christ's  body,  than 
the  apostle's  comparison.  'Believers,  though  many,  are  one 
body  in  Christ,  and  every  one  members  one  of  another.'  01 
Tuokkol  ev  awfid  iafxzv.  We,  the  many,  are  one  body.  In  one 
respect  we  are  many,  in  another  we  are  one.  Just  as  the  body 
is  many  as  to  its  members,  and  one  in  their  organic  connection. 
Believers  are  one  body,  i.  e.,  a  living  organic  whole,  not  in 
virtue  of  any  external  organization,  but  in  Christ,  i.  e.,  in 
virtue  of  their  common  union  with  him.  And  as  this  union  with 
Christ  is  not  merely  external,  or  by  profession,  or  by  unity  of 
opinion  and  sentiment  only,  but  vital,  arising  from  the  indwell- 
39 


610  ROMANS  XII.  6. 

ing  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  so,  the  apostle 
adds,  the  union  of  believers  one  with  another,  is  also  a  vital 
union.  They  are  6  xad-'  £«c  alkjlcou  fieXyj,  every  one  members  one 
of  another.  The  relation  of  believers  to  each  other  is  far  more 
intimate  than  that  between  the  members  of  any  external  organi- 
zation, whether  civil  or  ecclesiastical.  It  is  analogous  to  the 
mutual  relation  of  the  members  of  the  same  body,  animated  by 
one  soul,  b  xad^  etc;  for  6  xad-''  eua,  in  the  sense  of  el<;  ixaazoz^ 
is  a  solecism  occurring  only  in  the  later  Greek. 

Verse  6.  Having  therefore  gifts  differing  according  to  the 
grace  given  unto  us,  &c.  In  this  and  the  following  verses  we 
have  the  application  of  the  preceding  comparison  to  the  special 
object  in  view.  'If  Christians  are  all  members  of  the  same 
body,  having  different  offices  and  gifts,  instead  of  being  puffed 
up  one  above  another,  and  instead  of  envying  and  opposing 
each  other,  they  should  severally  discharge  their  respective 
duties  diligently  and  humbly  for  the  good  of  the  whole,  and  not 
for  their  OAvn  advantage.'  It  is  a  common  opinion  that  the 
apostle,  in  specifying  the  various  gifts  to  which  he  refers,  meant 
to  arrange  them  under  the  two  heads  oi prophesying  and  admin- 
istering ;  or  that  he  specifies  the  duties  of  two  classes  of  officers, 
the  prophets  and  deacons  {pcdxovoc).  To  the  former  would  then 
belong  prophesying,  teaching,  exhortation;  to  the  latter,  min- 
istering, giving,  ruling,  showing  mercy.  This  view  of  the  pas- 
sage, which  is  adopted  by  De  Brais,  Koppe,  and  others,  requires 
that  the  terms  prophet  and  deacon  should  be  taken  in  their 
widest  sense.  Both  are  indeed  frequently  used  with  great 
latitude ;  the  former  being  applied  to  any  one  who  speaks  as 
the  mouth  of  God,  or  the  explainer  of  his  will ;  and  the  latter 
to  any  ministerial  officer  in  the  church,  1  Cor.  iii.  5,  Eph.  iii.  7, 
Col.  i.  7,  23,  &c.  Although  this  interpretation  is  consistent 
with  the  usage  of  the  words,  and  in  some  measure  simplifies  the 
passage,  yet  it  is  by  no  means  necessary.  There  is  no  appear- 
ance of  such  a  systematic  arrangement ;  on  the  contrary,  Paul 
seems  to  refer  without  any  order  to  the  various  duties  which  the 
officers  and  even  private  members  of  the  church  were  called 
upon  to  perform.  The  construction  in  the  original  is  not 
entirely  regular,  and,  therefore,  has  been  variously  explained. 
There  is  no  interpretation  more  natural  than  that  adopted  by 


ROMANS  XII.  6.  611 

our  translators,  who,  considering  the  passage  as  elliptical,  have 
supplied  in  the  several  specifications  the  phrases  which  in  each 
case  the  sense  requires.  Instead  of  beginning  a  new  sentence 
with  ver.  6,  many  commentators  connect  lyovTtz  with  taixtv  in 
ver.  5,  and  make  the  following  accusatives  depend  on  it.  The 
whole  passage  is  then  regarded  as  declarative,  and  not  exhorta- 
tive. '  We  are  one  body  having  gifts,  prophecy  according  to 
the  proportion  of  faith ;  or  the  gift  of  ministering,  in  the  minis- 
try, he  that  teacheth,  in  teaching,'  &c.  It  is  plain,  however, 
that  this  requires  a  very  forced  interpretation  to  be  given  to  the 
several  terms  here  used.  Jcaxovca  does  not  in  the  same  clause 
mean  first  the  gift,  and  then  the  exercise  of  the  gift ;  much  less 
can  iu  tyJ  Trapax^ffst,  kv  SlttXottju,  &c.,  indicate  the  sphere  within 
which  the  gifts  mentioned  are  exercised.  Others  retaining  the 
exhortatory  character  of  the  passage,  still  connect  i^opT£(;  with 
ver.  5.  '  We  are  having  gifts,  whether  prophecy  or  ministry, 
let  us  use  them  aright.'  On  the  whole,  the  simplest  method  is 
to  begin  a  new  sentence  with  i^ouze^,  and  supply  the  necessary 
verb  in  the  several  clauses,  as  is  done  in  our  version,  and  by 
Olshausen,  Fritzsche,  Phillipi.  Comp.  1  Peter  iv.  11,  d  t«; 
?.ah7,  a)C  ^^oyca  Oaoo  (sc.  XaXztrco).  &c. 

Having  therefore  gifts  differing  according  to  the  grace  given 
unto  us,  i.  e.,  as  there  are  in  the  one  body  various  offices  and 
gifts,  let  every  one  act  in  a  manner  consistent  with  the  nature 
and  design  of  the  particular  gift  which  he  has  received.  Whe- 
ther prophecy,  let  us  prophesy  according  to  the  proportion  of 
faith.  The  first  gift  specified  is  that  of  prophecy,  with  regard 
to  the  precise  nature  of  which  there  is  no  little  diversity  of 
opinion.  The  original  and  proper  meaning  of  the  Hebrew 
word  rendered  prophet  in  the  Old  Testament,  is  interpreter,  one 
who  explains  or  delivers  the  will  of  another.  And  to  this  idea 
the  Greek  term  also  answers.  It  matters  little  whether  the 
will  or  purpose  of  God  which  the  prophets  were  called  upon  to 
deliver,  had  reference  to  present  duty  or  to  future  events. 
They  derived  their  Hebrew  name  not  from  predicting  what  was 
to  come  to  pass,  which  was  but  a  small  part  of  their  duty,  but 
from  being  the  interpreters  of  God,  men  who  spoke  in  his  name. 
We  accordingly  find  the  term  prophet  applied  to  all  classes  of 
religious  teachers  under  the  old  dispensation.     Of  Abraham  it 


612  ROMANS  XII.  6. 

is  said,  "  He  is  a  prophet,  and  he  shall  pray  for  thee  and  thou 
shalt  live,"  Gen.  xx.  7.  The  name  is  often  applied  to  Moses 
as  the  great  interpreter  of  the  will  of  God  to  the  Hebrews, 
Deut.  xviii.  18 ;  and  the  writers  of  the  historical  books  are  also 
constantly  so  called.  The  passage  in  Exod.  vii.  1,  is  peculiarly 
interesting,  as  it  clearly  exhibits  the  proper  meaning  of  this 
word.  "And  the  Lord  said  unto  Moses,  See,  I  have  made 
thee  a  god  to  Pharaoh ;  and  Aaron  thy  brother  shall  be  thy 
prophet,"  i.  e.  he  shall  be  thy  interpreter.  In  chap.  iv.  16,  it 
is  said,  "He  shall  be  a  mouth  to  thee;"  and  of  Jeremiah,  God 
says,  "Thou  shalt  be  my  mouth,"  Jer.  xv.  19;  compare  Deut. 
xviii.  18.  Any  one,  therefore,  who  acted  as  the  mouth  of  God, 
no  matter  what  was  the  nature  of  the  communication,  was  a 
prophet.  And  this  is  also  the  sense  of  the  word  in  the  New 
Testament;*  it  is  applied  to  any  one  employed  to  deliver  a 
divine  message,  Matt.  x.  41,  xiii.  57,  Luke  iv.  24,  vii.  26 — 29, 
"What  went  ye  out  to  see?  A  prophet?  yea,  I  say  unto  you, 
and  much  more  than  a  prophet.  This  is  he  of  whom  it  is 
written,  Behold  I  send  my  messenger,  &c."  John  iv.  19, 
"Sir,  I  perceive  that  thou  art  a  prophet,"  i.  e.,  an  inspired 
man.  Acts  xv.  32,  "And  Judas  and  Silas,  being  prophets, 
also  themselves  exhorted  the  brethren  and  confirmed  them." 
1  Cor.  xii.  28,  "  God  hath  set  in  the  church,  first,  apostles ; 
secondarily,  prophets;  thirdly,  teachers;  &c."  1  Cor.  xiv. 
29 — 32,  "Let  the  prophets  speak  two  or  three,  and  let  the 
other  judge.  If  anything  be  revealed  to  another  that  sitteth 
by,  let  the  first  hold  his  peace.  For  ye  may  all  prophesy  one 
by  one,  that  all  may  learn  and  all  may  be  comforted.  For  the 
spirits  of  the  prophets  are  subjects  to  the  prophets."  "If  any 
man  think  himself  to  be  a  prophet  or  spiritual  (inspired),  let 
him  acknowledge,  &c."     From  these  and  numerous  similar  pas- 

*  In  common  Greek,  also,  this  is  the  meaning  of  the  word.  The  /udvrt;  was 
the  immediate  receiver  of  the  divine  influence,  and  declarer  of  the  oracles,  and 
the  T»i)<?)»T)K  was  the  interpreter.  Hence  [aovo-Zv  «-go<|>«Ta«  the  interpreters  of  the 
Muses.  These  two  words,  however,  /xdvrn  and  «-gof«T»?,  are  frequently  used 
indiscriminately,  the  latter  being  applied  to  any  person  who  spoke  under  a 
divine  influence.  As  poets  were  supposed  to  speak  under  a  certain  kind  of 
inspiration,  they  too  were  called  prophets.  Paul  used  the  word  in  this  sense 
when  he  wrote  to  Titus,  Tit.  i.  12,  "A  prophet  of  their  own  said,  the  Cretans 
are  always  liars,"  &c. 


ROMANS  XII.  6.  613 

sages,  it  appears  that  the  prophets  in  the  Christian  church 
were  men  who  spoke  under  the  immediate  influence  of  the 
Spirit  of  God,  and  delivered  some  divine  communication  rela- 
ting to  doctrinal  truths,  to  present  duty,  to  future  events,  &c., 
as  the  case  might  be.*  The  point  of  distinction  between  them 
and  the  apostles,  considered  as  religious  teachers,  appears  to 
have  been  that  the  inspiration  of  the  apostles  was  abiding,  they 
were  the  infallible  and  authoritative  messengers  of  Christ; 
whereas  the  inspiration  of  the  prophets  was  occasional  and 
transient.  The  latter  differed  from  the  teachers  {de8d<Txakot\ 
inasmuch  as  these  were  not  necessarily  inspired,  but  taught  to 
others  what  they  themselves  had  learned  from  the  Scriptures,  or 
from  inspired  men. 

Agreeably  to  this  view  of  the  oflBce  of  the  prophets,  we  find 
the  sacred  writers  speaking  of  the  gift  of  prophecy  as  consist- 
ing in  the  communication  of  divine  truth  by  the  Spirit  of  God, 
intended  for  instruction,  exhortation,  or  consolation.  "  Though 
I  have  the  gift  of  prophecy,  and  understand  all  mysteries  and 
all  knowledge,"  1  Cor.  xii.  2;  "He  that  prophesieth  speaketh 
unto  men  to  edification,  and  exhortation,  and  comfort,"  1  Cor. 
xiv.  4 ;  "If  all  prophesy,  and  there  come  in  one  that  believeth 
not,  or  one  unlearned,  he  is  convinced  of  all,  he  is  judged  of  all, 
&c."  ver.  24. 

The  gift  of  which  Paul  here  speaks,  is  not,  therefore,  the 
faculty  of  predicting  future  events,  but  that  of  immediate  occa- 
sional inspiration,  leading  the  recipient  to  deliver,  as  the  mouth 
of  God,  the  particular  communication  which  he  had  received, 
whether  designed  for  instruction,  exhortation,  or  comfort.  The 
apostle  required  that  those  who  enjoyed  this  gift  should  exer- 

*  Tl^tx^Yi'rw,  vates,  i.  e.,  vir  divinus,  qui  afflatu  divino  gaudet  et  cui  numen 
retegit,  quae  antea  incognita  erant,  maxime  ad  religionem  pertinentia. —  Wahl. 

Sunt  qui  prophetiam  intelligunt  divinandi  facultatem,  quae  circa  evangelii 
primordia  in  ecclesia  vigebat.  .  .  .  Ego  vero  eos  sequi  malo,  qui  latius  extend- 
unt  hoc  nomen  ad  peculiare  revelationis  donum,  ut  quis  dextre  ac  perite  in 
voluntate  Dei  enarranda  munus  interpretis  obeat. — Calvin. 

On  the  nature  of  the  office  of  prophet,  see  Koppe's  Excursus  III.,  appended 
to  his  Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians;  and  Winer's  Realwiirter- 
buch,  under  the  word  Propheten.  Both  these  treatises  are  rationalistic,  yet 
both  contain  the  materials  for  a  fair  examination  of  the  subject.  See  also 
Neander  on  the  Planting  of  the  Christian  Chui'ch,  Vol.  L 


614  ROMANS  XII.  6. 

cise  it  according  to  the  proportion  of  faith.  This  clause  admits 
of  different  interpretations.  The  word  {dvakoyia)  rendered 
proportion,  may  mean  either  proportion,  or  measure,  rule, 
standard.  Classic  usage  is  rather  in  favour  of  the  former  of 
these  meanings.  The  latter,  however,  is  necessarily  included 
in  the  former ;  and  the  word  is  defined  by  Hesychius,  measure, 
canon,  or  rule.  The  choice  between  the  two  meanings  of  the 
word  must  depend  on  the  sense  given  to  the  word  faith,  and  on 
the  context.  Faith  may  here  mean  inward  confidence  or 
belief;  or  it  may  mean  the  gift  received,  i.  e.  that  which  is 
confided  {to  TtemaTeufjtsvou);  or,  finally,  that  which  is  believed, 
truths  divinely  revealed.  If  the  first  of  these  three  senses  be 
adopted,  the  passage  means,  '  Let  him  prophesy  according  to 
his  internal  convictions ;  that  is,  he  must  not  exceed  in  his 
communication  what  he  honestly  believes  to  have  been  divinely 
communicated,  or  allow  himself  to  be  carried  away  by  enthu- 
siasm, to  deliver,  as  from  God,  what  is  really  nothing  but  his 
own  thoughts.'  If  the  second  sense  (of  niarc^)  be  preferred, 
the  clause  then  means,  '  Let  him  prophesy  according  to  the 
proportion  of  the  gifts  which  he  has  received;  i.  e.  let  every 
one  speak  according  to  the  degree  and  nature  of  the  divine 
influence,  or  the  particular  revelation  imparted  to  him.'  If, 
however,  faith  here  means,  as  it  does  in  so  many  other  places, 
the  object  of  faith,  or  the  truths  to  he  believed,  (see  Gal.  i.  23, 
iii.  25,  vi.  10,  Eph.  iv.  5,  2  Thess.  iii.  5,  &c.,)  then  according 
to  the  proportion  signifies,  agreeably  to  to  the  rule  or  standard; 
and  the  apostle's  direction  to  the  prophets  is,  that  in  all  their 
communications  they  are  to  conform  to  the  rule  of  faith,  and 
not  contradict  those  doctrines  which  had  been  delivered  by  men 
whose  inspiration  had  been  established  by  indubitable  evidence. 
In  favour  of  this  view  of  the  passage  is  the  frequent  use  of  the 
yfovdi  faith  in  the  sense  thus  assigned  to  it.  The  ordinary  sub- 
jective sense  of  the  word  does  not  suit  the  passage.  The 
amount  or  strength  of  faith  does  not  determine  either  the 
extent  to  which  the  gift  of  prophecy  is  enjoyed,  or  the  manner 
in  which  it  is  exercised.  There  were  prophets  who  had  no 
saving  faith  at  all ;  just  as  many  performed  miracles,  who  were 
not  the  true  disciples  of  Christ.  "  In  that  day,"  says  our  Lord, 
"  many  shall  say  unto  me.  Lord,  Lord,  have  we  not  prophesied 


ROMANS  XII.  6.  615 

in  thy  name,  and  in  thy  name  cast  out  devils  ?  and  in  thy 
name  done  many  wonderful  works  ?  To  whom  he  will  say,  I 
never  knew  you."  The  second  sense  given  to  niffz^;,  that  which 
is  confided  to  any  one,  i.  e.  a  gift,  is  without  any  authority. 
The  objective  sense  of  the  word,  although  denied  by  many  of 
the  strict  philological  interpreters,  is  nevertheless  well  estab- 
lished by  such  expressions,  "obedience  to  the  faith,"  "doer  of 
faith,"  "faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints,"  and  is  perfectly 
familiar  in  ecclesiastical  usage.  2.  The  fact  that  similar  direc- 
tions respecting  those  who  consider  themselves  prophets  or 
inspired  persons,  occur  in  other  passages.  Thus  Paul  says, 
"If  any  man  think  himself  to  be  a  prophet,  or  spiritual,  let 
him  acknowledge  that  the  things  that  I  write  unto  you  are  the 
commandments  of  the  Lord;"  1  Cor.  xiv.  37.  This  was  the 
standard ;  and  no  man  had  a  right  to  consider  himself  inspired, 
or  to  require  others  so  to  regard  him,  who  did  not  conform 
himself  to  the  instructions  of  men  whose  inspiration  was  beyond 
doubt.  Thus  too  the  apostle  John  commands  Christians, 
"Believe  not  every  spirit,  but  try  the  spirits  whether  they  be 
of  God;  because  many  false  prophets  are  gone  out  into  the 
world,"  1  John  iv.  1.  And  the  standard  by  which  these  pro- 
phets were  to  be  tried,  he  gives  in  ver.  6 :  "  We  are  of  God : 
he  that  knoweth  God,  heareth  us ;  and  he  that  is  not  of  God, 
heareth  not  us.  Hereby  we  know  the  spirit  of  truth  and  the 
spirit  of  error."  It  was  obviously  necessary  that  Christians, 
in  the  age  of  immediate  inspiration,  should  have  some  means 
of  discriminating  between  those  who  were  really  under  the 
influence  of  th(-  Spirit  of  God,  and  those  who  were  either 
enthusiasts  or  deceivers.  And  the  test  to  which  the  apostles 
directed  them  was  rational,  and  easily  applied.  There  were 
inspired  men  to  whose  divine  mission  and  authority  God  had 
borne  abundant  testimony  by  "signs  and  wonder,  and  divers 
miracles,  and  gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit."  As  God  cannot  con- 
tradict himself,  it  follows  that  anything  inconsistent  with  the 
teachings  of  these  men,  though  proceeding  from  one  claiming 
to  be  a  prophet,  must  be  false,  and  the  pretension  of  its  author 
to  inspiration  unfounded.  Accordingly,  the  apostle  directed 
that  while  one  prophet  spoke,  the  others  were  to  judge,  i.  e. 
decide  whether  he  spoke  according  to  the  analogy  of  faith ; .  and 


616  ROMANS  XII.  7. 

whether  his  inspiration  was  real,  imaginary,  or  feigned.  3.  This 
interpretation  is  also  perfectly  suitable  to  the  context.  Paul, 
after  giving  the  general  direction  contained  in  the  preceding 
verses,  as  to  the  light  in  which  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit  were  to 
be  viewed,  and  the  manner  in  which  they  were  to  be  used,  in 
this  and  the  following  verses,  gives  special  directions  with 
respect  to  particular  gifts.  Those  who  thought  themselves 
prophets  should  be  careful  to  speak  nothing  but  truth,  to  con- 
form to  the  standard ;  those  who  ministered  should  devote 
themselves  to  their  appropriate  duties,  &c. 

Verse  7.  Or  ministry,  let  us  wait  on  our  ministering;  or  he 
that  teacheth,  on  teaching.  The  terms  minister  and  ministry 
[dcdxovot^  and  dcaxovia,  deacon  and  deaconship,)  are  used  in  the 
New  Testament  both  in  a  general  and  a  restricted  sense.  In 
the  former,  they  are  employed  in  reference  to  all  classes  of 
ecclesiastical  officers,  even  the  apostles ;  see  1  Cor.  iii,  5,  2  Cor. 
vi.  4,  Eph.  iii.  7,  vi.  21,  Col.  i.  7,  23,  1  Tim.  iv.  6,  Acts  i.  17, 
25,  XX.  24,  Rom.  xi.  13,  1  Cor.  xii.  5,  2  Cor.  iv.  1,  &c.  In  the 
latter,  they  are  used  in  reference  to  a  particular  class  of 
officers,  to  whom  were  committed  the  management  of  the  exter- 
nal affairs  of  the  church,  the  care  of  the  poor,  attention  to  the 
sick,  &c.;  see  Acts  vi.  1 — 3,  Phil.  i.  1,  1  Tim.  iii.  8 — 13,  &c. 
It  is  doubtful  in  which  of  these  senses  the  latter  of  the  above- 
mentioned  words  is  here  used  by  the  apostle,  most  probably  in 
the  restricted  sense.  The  apostle  exhorts  different  classes  of 
officers  to  attend  to  their  own  peculiar  vocation,  and  to  exercise 
their  own  gifts,  without  intruding  into  the  sphere  of  others,  or 
envying  their  superior  endowments.  The  deacons,  therefore, 
were  to  attend  to  the  poor  and  the  sick,  and  not  attempt  to 
exercise  the  office  of  teachers.  Luther,  and  many  others,  give 
the  words  their  wide  sense.  "  Hat  jemand  ein  Amt,  so  warte 
er  des  Amtes ;"  If  a  man  has  an  office,  let  him  attend  to  it. 
But  this  would  render  unnecessary  the  specifications  which 
follow.  The  apostle,  in  this  context,  refers  to  definite  ecclesi- 
astical offices  in  connection  with  ordinary  Christian  duties. 
That  is,  he  exhorts  both  church  officers  and  private  Chris- 
tians. 

He  that  teacheth,  on  teaching.  Teachers  are  elsewhere 
expressly  distinguished  from  prophets,  1  Cor.  xii.  28,  29 :  "  God 


ROMANS  XII.  8.  617 

hath  set  some  in  the  church ;  first,  apostles ;  secondarily,  pro- 
phets ;  thirdly,  teachers.  Are  all  apostles  ?  are  all  prophets  ? 
are  all  teachers?  are  all  workers  of  miracles?"  And  in  this 
passage  they  are  not  to  be  confounded,  nor  is  teaching  to  be 
regarded,  in  this  place,  as  one  part  of  prophesying.  As 
remarked  above  on  ver.  6,  the  teachers  were  distinguished  from 
prophets,  inasmuch  as  the  former  were  not  necessarily  inspired, 
and  were  a  regular  and  permanent  class  of  officers.  Those  who 
had  the  gift  of  prophecy,  were  to  exercise  it  aright ;  those  who 
were  called  to  the  office  of  deacons,  were  to  devote  themselves 
to  their  appropriate  duties ;  and  those  who  had  the  gift  of 
teaching,  were  to  teach. 

Verse  8.  Se  that  exhorteth,  on  exhortation.  The  word 
{napaxaXeco)  here  used,  means  to  invite,  exhort,  and  to  comfort. 
Our  translators  have  probably  selected  the  most  appropriate 
sense.  Teaching  is  addressed  to  the  understanding;  exhorta- 
tion, to  the  conscience  and  feelings.  There  was  probably  no 
distinct  class  of  officers  called  exhorters,  as  distinguished  from 
teachers;  but  as  the  apostle  is  speaking  of  gifts  as  well  as 
officers,  (both  are  included  in  the  word  yapiafiara^  his  direc- 
tion is,  that  he  who  had  the  gift  of  teaching,  should  teach  ;  and 
that  he  who  had  a  gift  for  exhortation,  should  be  content  to 
exhort. 

He  that  giveth,  let  him  do  it  with  simplicity;  he  that  ruleth, 
with  diligence;  he  that  showeth  mercy,  with  cheerfulness.  These 
directions  have  reference  to  the  manner  in  which  the  duties  of 
church  officers  and  of  private  Christians  ought  to  be  performed. 
In  this  connection,  the  former  no  doubt  are  principally,  though 
not  exclusively  intended.  It  is  a  common  opinion,  that  giving, 
ruling,  showing  mercy,  (6  fieradidoui;,  6  7rpoi(JTdju£vo<:,  b  iXeaiv,) 
refer  to  different  functions  of  the  deaconate.  But  not  only  the 
use  of  [itradcdouQ  instead  of  Seadedou(; — the  former  properly 
meaning  giving  (what  is  one's  own,)  and  the  latter,  distribut- 
ing— is  opposed  to  this  view,  but  the  whole  exhortation,  which 
refers  with  equal,  or  greater  propriety,  to  the  state  of  mind 
and  the  manner  in  which  the  private  duties  of  Christian  fellow- 
ship are  be  performed.  There  seems  to  be  no  good  reason  for 
the  restriction  of  the  directions  here  given  to  either  class, 
officers  or  private  members,  exclusively.     Me  that  giveth,  with 


618  ROMANS  XII.  8. 

simplicity,  iTtXovrjzty  singleness  of  mind.  This  direction,  con- 
sidered in  reference  to  the  deacons,  whom,  no  doubt,  Paul 
included  in  his  exhortation,  contemplates  their  duty  of  impart- 
ing or  distributing  to  the  necessity  of  the  saints.  This  duty, 
by  whomsoever  performed,  is  to  be  done  with  simplicity,  i.  e., 
with  purity  of  motive,  free  from  all  improper  designs.  This 
same  word  is  rendered  singleness  of  heart,  in  Eph.  vi.  5,  Col. 
iii.  22,  and  occurs  in  the  same  sense,  in  the  phrase,  "simplicity 
and  godly  sincerity,"  2  Cor.  i.  12.  Considered  in  reference  to 
private  Christians,  this  clause  may  be  rendered,  he  that  givethy 
with  liberality;  see  2  Cor.  viii.  2,  ix.  11,  13. 

He  that  ruleth,  with  diligence.  Here  again  the  right  dis- 
charge of  ecclesiastical  duties  is  principally  intended ;  1  Thess. 
V.  12,  "  We  beseech  you,  brethren,  to  know  (esteem,  love)  them 
that  are  over  you  in  the  Lord;"  1  Tim.  v.  17,  "The  elders 
that  rule  well."  There  is  considerable  diversity  of  opinion  as 
to  the  explanation  to  be  here  given  to  6  7:poiaTdfi£vo<:.  The 
word  properly  means,  one  who  is  placed  over,  who  presides,  or 
rules.  It  is,  however,  used  in  a  more  restricted  sense,  for  a 
patron,  one  who  befriends  others,  and  especially  strangers. 
Hence  in  xvi.  2,  Phoebe  is  called  a  Ttpoardzc^,  a  patroness,  one 
who  befriended  strangers.  As  what  precedes  and  what  follows, 
giving  and  showing  mercy,  relates  to  acts  of  kindness,  the  one 
to  the  poor,  the  other  to  the  sick,  so  this  word,  it  is  urged, 
should  be  understood  of  showing  kindness  to  strangers.  There 
is  certainly  force  in  this  consideration.  But  as  there  is  very 
slight  foundation  for  the  ascription  of  this  meaning  to  the 
word  in  the  New  Testament,  and  as  it  is  elsewhere  used  in  its 
ordinary  sense,  (see  1  Thess.  v.  13,  comp.  1  Tim.  vi.  17,)  it  is 
commonly  understood  of  rulers.  Some  take  it  in  reference  to 
rulers  in  general,  civil  or  ecclesiastical;  others,  of  church- 
rulers  or  elders  ;  others,  specifically  of  the  forestaer,  or  pastor, 
or  bishop  of  the  congregation.  The  objection  against  this 
restricted  reference  to  the  presiding  officer  of  a  church,  is  the 
introduction  of  the  term  in  the  enumeration  of  ordinary  Chris- 
tian duties.  He  that  gives,  he  that  acts  as  pastor,  he  that 
shows  mercy,  is  rather  an  incongruous  association.  It  is  more 
common,  therefore,  to  understand  7:poiardixevo<;,  of  any  one  who 
exercises  authority  in  the  church.     Those  who  were  called  to 


ROMANS  XII.  1—8.  619 

exercise  the  oflSce  of  ruler,  were  required  to  do  it  (iu  anoodvf) 
with  diligence,  i.  e.  with  attention  and  zeal.  This  is  opposed 
to  inertness  and  carelessness.  The  government  of  the  church, 
in  correcting  abuses,  preventing  disorders,  and  in  the  adminis- 
tration of  discipline,  calls  for  constant  vigilance  and  fidelity. 
'^npoiazdfievoui;  tametsi  proprie  nuncupat  eos,  quibus  mandata 
erat  ecclesias  gubernatio  (erant  autem  illi  seniores,  qui  aliis 
prseibant  ac  moderabantur,  vitseque  censuram  exercebant,)  quod 
autem  de  illis  dicit  extendi  in  universum  ad  prsefecturas  omne 
genus  potest.  Neque  enim  aut  parva  ab  iis  solicitudo  requiri- 
tur,  qui  omnium  securitati  consulere,  aut  parva  sedulitas  ab 
iis,  qui  pro  salute  omnium  noctes  diesque  excubare  debent." 
Calvin. 

He  that  Bhoweth  mercy,  with  cheerfulness,  {IXapovrji;,  hilarity.) 
As  the  former  direction  (he  that  giveth,  with  simplicity)  had 
reference  to  the  care  of  the  poor,  this  relates  to  the  care  of  the 
sick  and  afilicted.  These  were  the  two  great  departments  of 
the  deacons'  duties.  The  former  was  to  be  discharged  with 
honesty,  this  with  cheerfulness ;  not  as  a  matter  of  constraint, 
but  with  alacrity  and  kindness.  On  this,  the  value  of  any  ser- 
vice rendered  to  the  children  of  sorrow  mainly  depends. 

DOCTRINE. 

1.  The  great  principle,  that  truth  is  in  order  to  holiness, 
which  is  so  frequently  taught  in  the  Scriptures,  is  plainly 
implied  in  this  passage.  All  the  doctrines  of  justification, 
grace,  election,  and  final  salvation,  taught  in  the  preceding 
part  of  the  epistle,  are  made  the  foundation  for  the  practical 
duties  enjoined  in  this,  ver.  1. 

2.  The  first  great  duty  of  redeemed  sinners  is  the  dedication 
of  themselves  to  God.  This  consecration  must  be  entire,  of  the 
body  as  well  as  the  soul ;  it  must  be  constant,  and  according  to 
his  will,  ver.  1. 

3.  Regeneration  is  a  renewing  of  the  mind,  evincing  itself 
in  a  transformation  of  the  whole  character,  and  leading  to  the 
knowledge  and  approbation  of  whatever  is  acceptable  to  God, 
ver.  2. 

4.  God  is  the  giver  of  all  good,  of  honours  and  offices  as 
well  as  of  talents  and  graces ;  and  in  the  distribution  of  his 


620  ROMANS  XII.  1—8. 

favours  he  renders  to  every  man   according  to  his  own  will, 
vs.  3,  6. 

5.  Christians  are  one  body  in  Christ.     This  unity  is  not  only 
consistent  with  great  diversity  of  gifts,  but  necessarily  implies 
it;  as  the  body  is  one  from  the  union  of  various  members,' 
designed  for  the  performance  of  various  functions,  vs.  4,  5. 

6.  The  diflferent  offices  of  the  church  are  of  divine  appoint- 
ment, and  are  designed  for  the  benefit  of  the  whole  body,  and 
not  for  the  advantage  of  those  who  hold  them,  vs.  6 — 8. 

REMARKS. 

1.  The  effect  produced  upon  us  by  the  mercies  of  God,  in 
redemption,  and  in  his  providence,  affords  an  excellent  criterion 
of  character.  If  they  lead  us  to  devote  ourselves  to  his  service, 
they  produce  the  effect  for  which  they  were  designed,  and  we 
may  conclude  that  we  are  of  the  number  of  his  children.  But 
if  they  produce  indifference  to  duty,  and  cherish  the  idea  that 
we  are  the  special  favourites  of  heaven,  or  that  we  may  sin  with 
impunity,  it  is  an  evidence  that  our  hearts  are  not  right  in  the 
sight  of  God,  ver.  1. 

2.  While  Christians  should  remember  that  the  service  which 
they  are  called  upon  to  render  is  a  rational  service,  pertaining 
to  the  soul,  they  should  not  suppose  that  it  consists  merely  in 
the  secret  exercises  of  the  heart.  The  whole  man  and  the 
whole  life  must  be  actively  and  constantly  devoted  to  God, 
ver.  1. 

3.  Those  professors  of  religion  who  are  conformed  to  the 
world,  cannot  have  experienced  that  renewing  of  the  mind 
which  produces  a  transformation  of  character,  ver.  2. 

4.  Self-conceit  and  ambition  are  the  besetting  sins  of  men 
entrusted  with  power,  or  highly  gifted  in  any  respect,  as  dis- 
content and  envy  are  those  to  which  persons  of  inferior  station 
or  gifts  are  most  exposed.  These  evil  feelings,  so  offensive  to 
God,  would  be  subdued,  if  men  would  properly  lay  to  heart, 
that  peculiar  advantages  are  bestowed  according  to  the  divine 
pleasure ;  that  they  are  designed  to  advance  the  glory  of  God, 
and  the  good  of  his  church,  and  not  the  honour  or  emolument 
of  those  who  receive  them;  and  that  very  frequently  those 
which  are  least  attractive  in  the  sight  of  men,  are  the  most 


ROMANS  XII.  1—8.  621 

important  in  the  sight  of  God.  It  is  here  as  in  the  human 
frame ;  not  the  most  comely  parts  are  the  most  valuable,  but 
those  which  are  the  least  so.  The  vital  parts  of  our  system 
never  attract  the  praise  of  men,  and  are  never  the  source  of 
.vanity  or  pride,  ver.  3. 

5.  As  Christians  are  one  body  in  Christ,  they  should  feel 
their  mutual  dependence  and  their  common  interest  in  their 
Head,  from  whom  life,  intelligence,  enjoyment,  and  every  good 
comes.  They  should  sympathize  in  each  other's  joys  and  sor- 
rows ;  the  hand  should  not  envy  the  eye,  nor  the  eye  despise 
the  foot.  How  can  they,  who  are  destitute  of  this  common 
feeling  with  their  fellow  Christians,  be  partakers  of  that  Spirit 
by  which  true  believers  are  constituted  really  and  not  merely 
nominally  one?  vs.  4,  5. 

6.  Real  honour  consists  in  doing  well  what  God  calls  us  to 
do,  and  not  in  the  possession  of  high  offices  or  great  talents, 
vs.  6—8. 

7.  No  man's  usefulness  is  increased  by  going  out  of  his 
sphere.  It  is  a  great  mistake  to  suppose  because  one  pos- 
session or  employment  may,  in  itself  considered,  afford  better 
opportunity  of  doing  good  than  another,  that  therefore  any 
or  every  man  would  be  more  useful  in  the  one  than  in  the 
other.  The  highest  improvement  of  the  individual,  and  the 
greatest  good  of  the  whole,  are  best  secured  by  each  being 
and  doing  what  God  sees  fit  to  determine.  If  all  were  the 
same  member,  where  were  the  body  ?  '  God  is  not  the  author 
of  confusion,  but  of  order,  in  all  the  churches  of  the  saints,' 
vs.  6—8. 

8.  No  amount  of  learning,  no  superiority  of  talent,  nor  even 
the  pretension  to  inspiration,  can  justify  a  departure  from  the 
analogy  of  faith,  i.  e.,  from  the  truths  taught  by  men  to  whose 
inspiration  God  has  borne  witness.  All  teachers  must  be 
brought  to  this  standard;  and  even  if  an  angel  from  heaven 
should  teach  anything  contrary  to  the  Scriptures,  he  should  be 
regarded  as  anathema.  Gal.  i.  8.  It  is  a  matter  of  constant 
gratitude  that  we  have  such  a  standard  whereby  to  try  the 
spirits  whether  they  be  of  God.  Ministers  of  Christ  should 
see  to  it,  that  they  do  not  incur  the  curse  which  Paul  denounces 
on  those  who  preach  another  gospel,  ver.  6. 


622  ROMANS  XII.  9. 

9.  Private  Christians,  and  especially  ecclesiastical  officers, 
are  required  to  discharge  their  respective  duties  with  singleness 
of  heart,  and  in  the  exercise  of  those  virtues  which  the  peculiar 
nature  of  their  vocation  may  demand,  vs.  6 — 8. 


EOMANS   XII.  9—21. 

ANALYSIS. 

Having  treated  of  those  duties  which  belong  more  especially 
to  the  officers  of  the  church,  the  apostle  exhorts  his  readers 
generally  to  the  exercise  of  various  Christian  virtues.  There 
is  no  logical  arrangement  observed  in  this  part  of  the  chapter, 
except  that  the  general  exhortation  to  love  precedes  the  pre- 
cepts which  relate  to  those  exercises  which  are,  for  the  most 
part,  but  different  manifestations  of  this  primary  grace.  The 
love  of  the  Christian  must  be  sincere,  and  lead  to  the  avoiding 
of  evil,  and  the  pursuit  of  good,  ver.  9.  It  must  produce 
brotherly  affection  and  humility,  ver.  10 ;  diligence  and  devo- 
tion, ver.  11;  resignation,  patience,  and  prayer,  ver.  12; 
charity  and  hospitality,  ver.  13;  forgiveness  of  injuries,  ver. 
14;  sympathy  with  the  joys  and  sorrows  of  others,  ver.  15; 
concord  and  lowliness  of  mind,  ver.  16 ;  and  a  constant  endea- 
vour to  return  good  for  evil,  vs.  17 — 21. 

COMMENTARY. 

Verse  9.  Let  love  he  without  dissimulation,  or,  Love  is  with- 
out hypocrisy,  i.  e.,  sincere,  not  hypocritical,  and  not  consisting 
in  words  merely.  The  love  intended  in  this  verse,  is  probably 
love  to  all  men,  and  not  to  Christians  exclusively,  as  in  ver.  10, 
brotherly  affection  is  particularly  specified.  Much  less  is  love 
to  God  the  idea  meant  to  be  expressed. 

Abhor  that  which  is  evil;  cleave  to  that  which  is  good.  There 
is  a  number  of  participles  following  this  verse,  to  which  our 
translators  supply  the  imperative  of  the  substantive  verb ;  '  be 
abhorring,'  ^be  kindly  affectioned,'  &c.  Others  connect  them 
all  with  tbXojslte  in  ver.  14;  'abhorring  evil,'  'being  kindly 
affectioned,'  'bless  those,'  &c.     But  these  participles  do  not 


ROMANS  XII.  10.  623 

express  what  should  qualify,  or  characterize,  the  act  of  blessing 
our  persecutors;  'hating,'  Moving  the  brethren,'  ^ bless  your 
enemies,'  &c.  It  is  more  natural  to  assume  that  the  apostle 
departs  slightly  from  the  regular  construction,  and  writes  as 
though,  in  ver  9,  he  had  said,  aydrzaxe  duu7:oxpcTco(;,  dTzoazuyo- 
Dvrec,  x.T.X.  Compare  2  Cor.  i.  7,  and  Heb.  xiii.  5,  d(fddp- 
Yopo(;  6  rpoTioi:  (for,  d<f(}.dpyupoi  TrepeTrorecTe,)  dpxoupevoc  tdlc^ 
Ttapouacv.  This  is  the  explanation  given  by  Philippi  and  others. 
The  words  rendered  to  abhor  {dnoazoyiio)  and  to  cleave  to  {xaX- 
Xdopac)  are  peculiarly  forcible,  and  express  the  highest  degree 
of  hatred  on  the  one  hand,  and  of  persevering  devotion  on  the 
other.  The  latter  word,  in  the  active  form,  properly  means,  to 
glue,  and  in  the  middle,  to  attach  one's  self  to  any  person  or 
thing.  The  words  evil  and  good,  in  this  passage,  may  be  under- 
stood of  moral  good  and  evil ;  and  the  exhortation  be  considered 
as  a  general  direction  to  hate  the  one  and  love  the  other.  But 
the  great  majority  of  commentators,  out  of  regard  to  the  con- 
text, take  the  terms  in  a  restricted  sense,  making  the  former 
mean  injurious,  and  the  latter  kind.  The  sense  of  the  whole 
verse  would  then  be,  '  Let  love  be  sincere ;  strive  to  avoid  what 
is  injurious  to  others,  and  earnestly  endeavour  to  do  whatever 
is  kind  and  useful.'  As  the  words  themselves  admit  of  either 
of  these  interpretations,  the  choice  between  them  depends  upon 
the  context.  The  latter  is,  on  this  ground,  perhaps  to  be  pre- 
ferred. 

Verse  10.  Be  Mndly  affectioned  one  to  another  with  brotherly 
love,  in  honour  preferring  one  another.  '  As  to  brotherly  love, 
be  kindly  aifectioned  one  towards  another.'  This  exhortation 
seems  to  have  special  reference  to  Christians.  The  word 
{(pdoaropyoc:)  used  by  the  apostle,  expresses  properly  the 
strong  natural  aifection  between  parents  and  children  {(Tzopfj), 
but  is  applied  also  to  tender  affection  of  any  kind.  Here,  no 
doubt,  the  idea  is,  that  Christians  should  love  each  other  with 
the  same  sincerity  and  tenderness  as  if  they  were  the  nearest 
relatives. 

In  honour  preferring  one  another.  This  passage,  thus  trans- 
lated, cannot  be  understood  otherwise  than  as  an  exhortation 
to  humility ;  and  such  is  the  interpretation  generally  given  to 
it.    But  the  word  {Tzpoi^ys'tadax)  rendered  to  prefer,  never  occurs 


624  ROMANS  XII.  11. 

in  that  sense  elsewhere.  It  means  properly,  to  go  before,  to 
lead;  and  then,  figuratively,  to  set  an  example.  And  the  word 
translated  honour,  may  mean  deference,  respect,  and  even  kind- 
ness, (ohservantia  et  omnia  humanitatis  officia  quae  aliis  debe- 
mus.  Schleusner.)  The  sense  of  the  clause  may  then  be,  *  as 
to  respect  and  kindness  {Tifif^)  going  before  each  other,  or 
setting  an  example  one  to  another.'  This  interpretation,  which 
is  given  by  most  of  the  recent  commentators,  is  not  only  better 
suited  to  the  meaning  of  the  words,  but  also  to  the  context. 
The  Vulgate  translates,  "Honore  invicem  praevenientes ;"  and 
Luther,  "  Einer  komme  dem  Andern  mit  Ehrererbietung  zu  vor." 
It  is  not  only  an  injunction  of  politeness,  but  that  in  all  acts  of 
respect  and  kindness,  we  should  take  the  lead.  Instead  of  wait- 
ing for  others  to  honour  us,  we  should  be  beforehand  with  theqi 
in  the  manifestation  of  respect. 

Verse  11.  Wot  slothful  in  business;  fervent  in  spirit;  serv- 
ing the  Lord.  The  love  to  which  the  apostle  exhorts  his  readers 
is  not  inactive  or  cold ;  on  the  contrary,  it  manifests  itself  in 
diligence,  zeal,  and  devotion  to  God.  The  word  rendered  busi- 
ness {anoudij)  properly  means  haste,  activity/.  It  is  the  eflfect  or 
outward  manifestation  of  zeal.  The  exhortation  has  not  the 
reference  which  our  version  would  naturally  suggest,  viz.,  to 
the  active  performance  of  our  several  vocations;  it  refers 
rather  to  religious  activity :  '  As  to  activity  or  diligence,  do  not 
grow  weary  or  be  indolent;  on  the  contrary,  be  fervent  in 
spirit.'  The  word  spirit  is  by  many  understood  of  the  Holy 
Spirit;  it  most  naturally  refers  to  the  mind;  compare  Acta 
xviii.  25,  where  it  is  said  of  Apollos,  "being  fervent  in  spirit 
(i.  e.,  zealous,)  he  spake  and  taught  diligently."  This  clause, 
therefore,  stands  in  opposition  to  the  preceding.  Instead  of 
being  inactive,  we  wshould  be  zealous. 

Serving  the  Lord,  i.  e.,  doing  service  to  the  Lord;  influenced 
in  our  activity  and  zeal  by  a  desire  to  serve  Christ.  This 
member  of  the  sentence  thus  understood,  describes  the  motive 
from  which  zeal  and  diligence  should  proceed.  Compare  Eph. 
vi.  5 — 8,  especially  the  expressions,  as  unto  Christ,  as  the 
servants  of  Christ,  as  to  the  Lord,  &c.;  and  Col.  iii.  22,  23. 
Instead  of  serving  the  Lord,  there  is  another  reading,  accord- 
ing  to  which    the'  passage    must    be    rendered,    serving   the 


ROMANS  XII.  12,  13.  625 

time*  (tempori  servientes.  Calvin,)  i.  e.,  making  the  most  of 
every  opportunity,  (see  Eph.  v.  16 ;)  or,  as  others  understand 
it,  'adapting  your  conduct  to  circumstances.'  Zeal  is  to  be 
tempered  with  prudence.  The  common  text  is  the  best  authen- 
ticated, and  is  generally  adopted.  The  zeal  which  the  apostle 
recommends  is  zeal  for  Christ,  and  not  for  our  own  advancement 
or  interests. 

Verse  12.  Rejoicing  in  hope;  patient  in  tribulation;  eonr 
tinning  instant  in  prayer.  These  exhortations  refer  to  nearly 
related  duties:  Christians  are  to  be  joyful,  patient,  and  prayer- 
ful. However  adverse  their  circumstances,  hope,  patience,  and 
prayer  are  not  only  duties,  but  the  richest  sources  of  consola- 
tion and  support.  'Rejoicing  on  account  of  hope,  or  in  the 
joyful  expectation  of  future  good.'  This  hope  of  salvation  is 
the  most  effectual  means  of  producing  patience  under  present 
afflictions ;  for  if  we  feel  "  that  the  sufferings  of  this  present 
time  are  not  worthy  to  be  compared  with  the  glory  which  shall 
be  revealed  in  us,"  it  will  not  be  difficult  to  bear  them  patiently. 
Intercourse  with  God,  however,  is  necessary  to  the  exercise  of 
this  and  all  other  virtues,  and  therefore  the  apostle  immediately 
adds,  continuing  instant  in  prayer.  The  original  could  hardly 
be  better  translated ;  as  the  Greek  term  (rcpoaxapTepia),  inten- 
tus  sum  rei)  expresses  the  idea  of  perseverance  and  ardour  in 
the  prosecution  of  any  object.  There  are  no  attributes  of 
acceptable  prayer  more  frequently  presented  in  the  Scriptures 
than  those  here  referred  to,  viz.,  perseverance  and  fervour, 
which,  from  their  nature,  imply  faith  in  the  ability  and  wil- 
lingness of  God  to  grant  us  needed  good,  Acts  i.  14,  vi.  4, 
Eph.  vi.  18,  &c. 

Verse  13.  Distributing  to  the  necessity  of  sairits ;  given  to 
hospitality.  These  virtues  are  the  immediate  fruits  of  the  love 
enjoined  in  vs.  9,  10.  The  word  rendered  to  distribute  {xocvio- 
vea>)  signifies,  intransitively,  to  become  a  partaker  with;  and, 
transitively,  to  cause  others  to  partake  with  us,  to  communicate 

*  Kat/gu,  instead  of  xt/g/a,  is  read  only  in  the  MSS.  D.  F.  G.  All  the  other 
MSS.,  and  the  Coptic,  Ethiopic,  Armenian,  Vulgate,  and  Syriac  versions,  have 
«i/g/a>.  Mill  and  Griesbach  prefer  the  former;  but  Wetstein,  Bengel,  Knapp, 
Lachmann,  the  latter.  This  diversity  of  reading  is  not  surprising,  as  Kfi  waa 
a  frequent  contraction  both  for  m/giit  and  koU^u. 

40 


626  ROMANS  XIL  14. 

to.  It  is  commonly  followed  by  a  dative  of  the  person  to  whom 
the  communication  is  made,  Gal.  vi.  6.  In  this  case  the  con- 
struction may  be  the  same  as  in  the  preceding  verses,  '  as  to  the 
necessity  of  the  saints,  be  communicative;'  or,  '■give  to  the 
necessity  of  the  saints.'  The  transitive  meaning  of  xoivcovea)  is 
by  many  denied,  and  is,  at  least,  infrequent.  It  is,  therefore, 
commonly  taken  here  in  its  ordinary  sense :  '  Taking  part  in 
the  necessities  of  the  saints ;  regard  them  as  your  own.' 
Believers  are  xocvtovoi.  in  every  thing,  because  they  are  all  mem- 
bers of  the  body  of  Christ.  The  members  of  the  same  body 
have  the  same  interests,  feelings,  and  destiny.  The  joy  or 
sorrow  of  one  member,  is  the  joy  or  sorrow  of  all  the  others. 
The  necessities  of  one  are,  or  should  be,  a  common  burden. 
As  intimately  connected  with  this  injunction,  the  apostle  adds, 
given  to  hospitality,  as  our  translators  aptly  render  the  strong 
expression  of  the  original.  The  phrase  is  fdovz^iau  dccbxovrti;^ 
following  after  hospitality;  sectantes,  ut  hospites  non  modo 
admittatis,  sed  quaeratis.  The  value  which  the  early  Chris- 
tians placed  upon  the  virtue  of  hospitality  is  plain,  from  Paul's 
enumerating  it  among  the  requisite  qualifications  of  a  bishop, 
Titus  i.  8.  During  times  of  persecution,  and  before  the  gene- 
ral institution  of  houses  of  entertainment,  there  was  peculiar 
necessity  for  Christians  to  entertain  strangers.  As  such  houses 
are  still  rarely  to  be  met  with  in  the  East,  this  duty  continues 
to  be  there  regarded  as  one  of  the  most  sacred  character. 

Verse  14.  Bless  them  which  persecute  you ;  bless,  and  curse 
not.  The  exercise  of  love,  and  the  discharge  of  the  duties  of 
benevolence,  are  not  to  be  confined  to  the  saints,  or  people 
of  God ;  but  the  same  spirit  is  to  be  manifested  towards  our 
enemies.  The  word  [wXoyEiu)  rendered  to  bless,  signifies  both 
to  pray  for  good  to  any  one,  and  to  do  good.  Here,  from  the 
context,  the  former  meaning  is  to  be  preferred,  as  it  is  opposed 
to  cursing,  which  signifies  to  imprecate  evil  on  any  one.  The 
command  therefore  is,  that,  so  far  from  wishing  or  praying  that 
evil  may  overtake  our  persecutors  and  enemies,  we  must  sin- 
cerely desire  and  pray  for  their  good.  It  is  not  sufficient  to 
avoid  returning  evil  for  evil,  nor  even  to  banish  vindictive 
feelings ;  we  must  be  able  sincerely  to  desire  their  happiness. 
How  hard  this  is  for  corrupt  human  nature,  every  one  who  is 


ROMANS  XII.  15,  16.  627 

acquainted  with  his  own  heart  well  knows.  Yet  this  is  the 
standard  of  Christian  temper  and  character  exhibited  in  the 
Scriptures,  Matt.  v.  44.  "Ardua  res  est,  fateor,  et  naturae 
hominis  penitus  contraria;  sed  nihil  tarn  arduum,  quod  non 
virtute  Dei  superetur,  quae  nobis  nunquam  deerit,  mode  ne 
ipsam  invocare  negligamus.  Et  quanqam  vix  unum  reperias 
qui  tantos  in  lege  Dei  progressus  fecerit,  ut  prgeceptum  istud 
impleat;  nemo  tamen  filium  Dei  jactare  se  potest,  aut  Christiani 
nomine  gloriari,  qui  non  animum  istum  ex  parte  induerit,  et 
cum  affectu  adverso  quotidie  pugnet.  Dixi  hoc  esse  difficilius 
quam  remittere  vindictam,  ubi  quis  Isesus  fuerit.  Qui  dam  enim 
licet  manus  contineant,  neque  etiam  agentur  nocendi  libidine, 
cuperent  tamen  aliunde  hostibus  suis  accidere  cladem  vel  dam- 
num. Deus  autem  verbo  suo  non  tantem  manus  coercet  a  male- 
ficiis,  sed  amarulentos  quoque  affectus  in  animis  domat ;  neque 
id  modo,  sed  etiarn  vult  de  eorum  salute  esse  sollicitos  qui  nos 
injuste  vexando  sibi  exitium  accersunt."    Calvin. 

Verse  15.  Rejoice  with  them  that  do  rejoice,  and  weep  with 
them  that  weep.  Love  produces  not  only  the  forgiveness  of 
enemies,  but  a  general  sympathy  in  the  joys  and  sorrows  of  our 
fellow  men,  and  especially  of  our  fellow  Christians.  The  dis- 
position here  enjoined  is  the  very  opposite  of  a  selfish  indiffer- 
ence to  any  interests  but  our  own.  The  gospel  requires  that 
we  should  feel  and  act  under  the  impression  that  all  men  are 
brethren ;  that  we  have  a  common  nature,  a  common  Father, 
and  a  common  destiny.  How  lovely  is  genuine  sympathy! 
How  much  like  Christ  is  the  man  who  feels  the  sorrows  and 
joys  of  others,  as  though  they  were  his  own ! 
.  Verse  16.  Be  of  the  same  mind  one  towards  another;  mind 
not  high  things,  hut  condescend  to  men  of  low  estate.  Be  not 
wise  in  your  own  conceits.  The  phrase  {to  abzb  fpovelu)  used 
by  the  apostle  expresses  the  general  idea  of  concord,  unanimity; 
whether  of  opinion  or  feeling  depends  on  the  context;  see 
2  Cor.  xiii.  11,  Phil.  ii.  2,  Rom.  xv.  5.  Here  the  latter  idea  is 
the  prominent  one.  'Be  of  the  same  mind,'  i.  e..  be  united  in 
feeling,  interests,  and  object,  let  there  be  no  discord  or  disagree- 
ment. This  idea  is  then  amplified  in  the  following  clauses ;  do 
not  be  aspiring,  but  be  humble.  Ambition  and  contempt  for 
lowly  persons  or  pursuits,  are  the  states  of  mind  most  incon- 


628  KOMANS  XII.  16. 

sistent  with  that  union  of  heart  by  which  all  Christians  should 
be  united.  •'  Quocirca  illud  to  aorb  non  intelligo  idem  quod 
alii  de  nobis  sentiunt,  sed  idem  quod  nos  de  nobis  ipsi  sentimus, 
vel  quod  alios  de  nobis  sentire  postulamus."  De  Brais.  Eras- 
mus and  others  understand  this  clause  to  mean,  'Think  of 
others  as  well  as  you  do  of  yourselves,'  [nemo  putet  alium  ae 
minorem.)  But  this  gives  too  restricted  a  sense,  and  is  no 
better  suited  to  the  context  than  the  common  interpretation 
given  above.  The  command  is,  that  we  should  be  united; 
feeling  towards  others  as  we  would  have  them  feel  towards  us. 
Mind  not  high  things,  i.  e.,  do  not  aspire  after  them,  do  not 
desire  and  seek  them ;  see  the  use  of  the  Greek  word  here  em- 
ployed in  chap.  viii.  5,  Col.  iii.  2,  (ra  dvio  fpouecre.)  But  eon- 
descend  to  men  of  low  estate.  The  general  idea  expressed  by 
these  two  clauses  is  obviously  this,  'Be  not  high-minded,  but 
humble.'  The  precise  meaning  of  the  latter  clause,  however,  is 
a  matter  of  much  doubt.  The  word  {aouaTrdya))  rendered  cow- 
descend  properly  means,  in  the  passive  or  middle  voice,  to  allow 
one's  self  to  be  carried  along  with  others,  i.  e.,  influenced  by 
them,  as  in  Gal.  ii.  13,  "  Insomuch  as  Barnabas  also  was 
(allowed  himself  to  be)  carried  away  with  their  dissimula- 
tion." And  2  Peter  iii.  7,  "Beware  lest  ye  also,  being  led 
away  with  the  error  of  the  wicked,  fall  from  your  own  stead- 
fastness." "  With  the  dative  of  a  person,  auvandytad^ac  means  to 
be  carried  along  with  him ;  with  the  dative  of  a  thing,  it  means  to 
be  carried  along  by  it."  JPhilippi.  If  ranttvolQ  be  here  taken 
as  masculine,  one  sense  is,  allow  yourselves  to  be  carried  along 
with  the  lowly,  i.  e.,  to  associate  with  them,  and  share  their 
condition.  If  it  be  taken  as  neuter,  to  correspond  with  the 
TO.  bipfjld  in  the  first  clause,  then  the  meaning  is,  allow  your- 
selves to  be  carried  along  together  by  lowly  things ;  i.  e.,  instead 
of  being  concerned  about  high  things,  let  lowly  things  occupy 
and  control  you.  So  Calvin:  "Non  arroganter  de  vobis  sen- 
tientes,  sed  humilibus  vos  accommodantes.  Vocem  humilihus 
in  neutro  genere  accipio,  ut  antithesis  ita  compleatur.  Hie 
ergo  damnatur  ambitio,  et  quae  sub  magnanimitatis  nomine  se 
insinuat  animi  elatio :  siquidem  praecipua  fidelium  virtus  mode- 
ratio  est,  vel  potius  submissio,  quae  honorem  semper  malit  aliis 
cedere  quam  praeripere."     Most  modern  commentators  concur 


ROMANS  XII.  17.  629 

in  this  view  of  the  passage.  In  either  way  the  general  sense  is 
the  same.  The  thing  forbidden  is  ambition ;  the  thing  enjoined 
is  lowliness  of  mind. 

Be  not  toise  in  your  own  conceit.  This  precept  is  intimately 
connected  with  the  preceding,  since  ambition  and  contempt  for 
lowly  persons  and  pursuits  generally  arise  from  overweening 
self-estimation.  No  species  of  pride  is  more  insidious  or  more 
injurious  than  the  pride  of  intellect,  or  a  fancied  superiority  to 
those  around  us,  which  leads  to  a  contempt  of  their  opinions, 
and  a  confident  reliance  upon  ourselves.  The  temper  which 
the  gospel  requires  is  that  of  a  little  child,  docile,  diffident,  and 
humble;  see  chap.  xi.  25,  Prov.  iii.  7,  Isa.  vii.  21. 

Verse  17.  Recompense  to  no  man  evil  for  evil.  Provide 
things  honest  in  the  sight  of  all  men.  Paul  having,  in  the  pre- 
ceding verses,  enjoined  the  duties  of  love,  condescension,  and 
kindness  towards  all  men,  comes,  in  this  and  the  follo'wing 
passages,  to  forbid  the  indulgence  of  a  contrary  disposition, 
especially  of  a  spirit  of  retaliation  and  revenge.  The  general 
direction  in  the  first  clause  is,  not  to  retaliate ;  which  is  but  a 
lower  exercise  of  the  virtue  afterward  enjoined  in  the  command 
to  "overcome  evil  with  good." 

Provide  things  honest  in  the  sight  of  all  men.  Our  transla- 
tion of  this  clause  is  not  very  happy,  as  it  suggests  an  idea 
foreign  to  the  meaning  of  the  original.  Paul  does  not  mean  to 
direct  us  to  make  provision  for  ourselves  or  families  in  an 
honest  manner,  which  is  probably  the  sense  commonly  attached 
to  the  passage  by  the  English  reader,  but  to  act  in  such  a 
manner  as  to  command  the  confidence  and  good  opinion  of  men. 
In  this  view,  the  connection  of  this  with  the  preceding  member 
of  the  verse  is  obvious.  'We  must  not  recompense  evil  for 
evil,  but  act  in  such  a  way  as  to  commend  ourselves  to  the  con- 
sciences of  all  men.'  There  should  not,  therefore,  be  a  period 
after  the  word  evil,  since  this  clause  assigns  a  motive  for  the 
discharge  of  the  duty  enjoined  in  the  first.  The  word  {izpovo- 
fia&at)  rendered  to  provide,  signifies  also  to  attend  to,  to  care 
for.  The  sense  then  is,  '  Do  not  resent  injuries,  having  regard 
to  the  good  opinion  of  men,'  i.  e.,  let  a  regard  to  the  honour  of 
religion  and  your  own  character  prevent  the  returning  of  evil  for 
evil.    Thus  Paul  (2  Cor.  viii.  20,  21)  says  of  himself  that  he 


630  ROMANS  XII.  18,  19. 

wished  others  to  be  associated  with  him  in  the  distribution  of  the 
alms  of  the  church,  "  having  regard  for  what  was  right,  {izpovo- 
ooiievoi  xakd,)  not  only  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord,  but  also  in  the 
sio-ht  of  men."  "  Summa  est,  dandam  sedulo  esse  operam,  ut 
nostra  integritate  omnes  aedificentur.  Ut  enim  necessaria  est 
nobis  conscientiae  innocentia  coram  Deo ;  ita  famae  integritas 
apud  homines  non  est  negligenda.  Nam  si  Deum  in  bonis  nostris 
operibus  glorificari  convenit,  tantundem  decedit  ejus  gloriae, 
ubi  nihil  laude  dignum  in  nobis  homines  conspiciunt."  Calvin. 
In  Proverbs  iii.  4,  we  have  the  same  exhortation,  nearly  in  the 
same  words  as  given  in  the  LXX. :  npovoou  xaXa  ipcontov  xupioo 
xal  dvd-p(i)7ia)V. 

Verse  18.  If  it  he  'possible,  as  much  as  lieth  in  you,  live 
peaceably  with  all  men.  The  retaliation  of  injuries  necessarily 
leads  to  contention  and  strife,  while  peace  is  the  natural  result 
of  a  forgiving  disposition.  The  command  in  this  verse,  there- 
fore, is  naturally  connected  with  that  contained  in  ver.  17.  So 
far  from  resenting  every  offence,  we  should  do  all  we  can  to  live 
at  peace  with  all  men.  As  the  preservation  of  peace  is  not 
always  within  our  control,  Paul  limits  his  command  by  saying, 
if  it  be  possible,  so  far  as  lieth  in  you,  to  i^  bpcov,  as  to  whatis 
of  you.  The  cause  of  conflict  must  not  arise  from  you.  Your 
duty  is  to  preserve  peace.  From  the  wickedness  of  others,  this 
is  often  impossible ;  and  Paul's  own  example  shows  that  he  was 
far  from  thinking  that  either  truth  or  principle  was  to  be  sacri- 
ficed for  the  preservation  of  peace.  His  whole  life  was  an 
active  and  ardent  contention  against  error  and  sin.  The  pre- 
cept, however,  is  plain,  and  the  duty  important.  As  far  as  it 
can  be  done  consistently  with  higher  obligations  and  more 
important  interests,  we  must  endeavour  to  promote  peace,  and 
for  this  end  avoid  giving  offence  and  avenging  injuries.  Gro- 
tius  well  expresses  the  meaning  of  this  verse :  ''  Omnium  amici 
este,  si  fieri  potest;  si  non  potest  utrimque,  certe  ex  vestra 
parte  amici  este." 

Verse  19.  Dearly  beloved,  avenge  not  yourselves;  but  rather 
give  place  unto  wrath,  &c.  This  is  a  repetition  and  amplifica- 
tion of  the  previous  injunction,  not  to  recompense  evil  for  evil. 
There  are  three  interpretations  of  the  phrase  give  place  unto 
wrath,  which  deserve  to  be  mentioned.     According  to  the  first, 


ROMANS  XII.  20.    .  631 

the  wratli  here  intended  is  that  of  the  injured  party,  and  to  give 
place  to,  is  made  to  signify,  to  allow  to  pass,  i.  e.,  let  it  go,  do 
not  cherish  or  indulge  it.  But  this  is  in  direct  contradiction  to 
the  common  and  proper  meaning  of  the  phrase  in  question, 
which  signifies,  give  free  scope  to;  and  no  example  of  a  con- 
trary usage  is  adduced.  In  Latin,  the  phrase,  dare  spatium 
irae,  is  frequently  used  in  the  sense  of  deferring  the  indulgence 
of  anger,  giving  it  space  or  time  to  cool.  But  spatium  in  these 
cases  has  reference  to  time,  temporis  spatium,  a  sense  in  which 
the  Greek  tottoc  is  not  used.  The  second  interpretation  refers 
the  wrath  to  the  injurer.  The  meaning  then  is,  '  Do  not  avenge 
yourselves,  but  rather  yield  {eedite  irae)  or  submit  to  the  anger 
of  your  enemies.'  This  is  consistent  with  the  literal  meaning 
of  the  phrase  to  give  place,  i.  e.,  to  get  out  of  the  way ;  and 
Schoettgen  says  that  the  Jewish  writers  use  the  corresponding 
Hebrew  phrase '  (tiip^  ins)  in  the  sense  of  avoiding;  of  this 
usage,  however,  there  is  no  example  in  the  Bible.  It  is  cer- 
tainly contrary  to  the  uniform  scriptural  usage  of  the  expres- 
sion, which  is  never  employed  to  convey  this  idea,  but  uniformly 
means,  as  just  stated,  to  give  room  to,  to  allow  free  exercise  to 
any  person  or  thing ;  see  Eph.  iv.  27,  "  Neither  give  place  to 
the  devil."  The  third  interpretation,  therefore,  according  to 
which  it  is  the  wrath  of  God  that  is  here  intended,  is  the 
only  one  consistent  with  the  meaning  of  the  phrase  or  with 
the  context.  'Dearly  beloved,  avenge  not  yourselves,  leave 
that  matter  to  God.'  Stand  out  of  the  way.  Give  scope  to 
the  wrath  of  God.  It  is  his  prerogative  to  punish.  The 
passage,  Vengeance  is  mine,  I  will  repay,  saith  the  Lord,  is 
quoted  from  Deut.  xxxii.  35,  and  is  obviously  cited  to  show  the 
propriety  of  the  command  to  leave  vengeance  to  God^  and  not 
attempt  to  take  it  into  our  own  hands.  This  does  not  imply  a 
desire  that  the  divine  vengeance  should  overtake  our  enemies, 
but  simply  that  we  should  not  usurp  the  prerogative  of  God  as 
the  avenger. 

Verse  20.  Therefore,  if  thine  enemy  hunger,  feed  him;  if 
he  thirst,  give  him  drink,  &c.  That  is,  instead  of  avenging  our- 
selves by  returning  evil  for  evil,  we  must  return  good  for  evil. 
The  expressions, /eec?  him  and  give  him  drink,  are  obviously 
not  to  be  confined  to  their  literal  meaning,  nor  even  to  the  dis- 


632  ROMANS  XII.  20. 

charge  of  the  common  offices  of  humanity ;  they  are  figurative 
expressions  for  all  the  duties  of  benevolence.  It  is  not  enough, 
therefore,  that  we  preserve  an  enemy  from  perishing ;  we  must 
treat  him  with  all  aflfection  and  kindness. 

For  in  so  doing  thou  shalt  heap  coals  of  fire  upon  his  head. 
This  whole  verse  is  taken  from  Prov.  xxv.  21,  22,  "If  thine 
enemy  be  hungry,  give  him  bread  to  eat ;  and  if  he  be  thirsty, 
give  him  water  to  drink :  for  thou  shalt  heap  coals  of  fire  upon 
his  head,  and  the  Lord  shall  reward  thee."  The  common  and 
natural  meaning  of  the  expression,  to  heap  coals  of  fire  upon 
any  one,  is  to  inflict  the  greatest  pain  upon  him,  to  punish  him 
most  severely ;  see  Ps.  cxl.  10,  "  Let  burning  coals  fall  upon 
them;"  Ps.  xi.  6,  "Upon  the  wicked  he  shall  rain  coals  (ts'^riQ 
for  fi^itans),  fire  and  brimstone,  and  an  horrible  tempest;" 
Ezek.  X.  2,  4  Esdr.  xvi.  52,  "  Let  not  the  wicked  deny  that  he 
has  sinned,  for  coals  of  fire  shall  burn  upon  the  head  of  him 
who  denies  that  he  has  sinned  against  the  Lord  God."  The 
most  probable  explanation  of  this  figurative  expression  is,  that 
the  allusion  is  to  the  lightning  or  fire  from  heaven,  which  is  the 
symbol  of  the  divine  vengeance.  To  rain  fire  upon  any  one,  is 
to  visit  him  with  the  severest  and  surest  destruction.  This 
explanation  is  much  more  natural  than  to  suppose  the  allusion 
is  to  the  practice  of  throwing  fire-brands  upon  the  heads  of  the 
besiegers  of  a  city,  or  to  the  fusing  of  metals. 

There  are  three  leading  interpretations  of  this  interesting 
clause.  The  first,  which  is  perhaps  the  oldest,  and  very  gene- 
rally received,  is,  that  Paul  means  to  say  that  our  enemies  will 
be  much  more  severely  punished  if  we  leave  them  in  the  hands 
of  God,  than  if  we  undertake  to  avenge  ourselves.  '  Treat  your 
enemy  kindly,  for  in  so  doing  you  secure  his  being  punished  by 
God  in  the  severest  manner.'  The  revolting  character  of  this 
interpretation,  which  every  one  must  feel,  is  mitigated  by  the 
remark,  that  the  enemy  is  not  to  be  thus  treated  from  any 
wish  or  intention  of  drawing  down  the  divine  wrath  upon  him ; 
it  is  only  meant  that  such  will  be  the  consequence.  But  this 
remark  does  not  meet  the  difficulty.  This  clause  is  so  con- 
nected with  the  preceding,  that  it  must  be  understood  as  assign- 
ing the  motive  or  reason  for  the  discharge  of  the  duty  enjoined : 
*  Treat  thine  enemy  kindly,  for  in  so  doing,'  &c.     The  second 


ROMANS  XII.  21.  633 

interpretation  is,  that  by  heaping  coals  of  fire  on  his  head,  is 
meant,  you  will  cause  him  pain,  i.  e.,  the  pain  of  remorse  and 
shame.  So  Tholuck,  and  many  other  commentators.  The 
third,  which  seems  much  the  most  simple  and  natural,  is,  'for 
in  so  doing,  you  will  take  the  most  effectual  method  of  subduing 
him.'  To  heap  coals  of  fire  on  any  one,  is  a  punishment  which 
no  one  can  bear;  he  must  yield  to  it.  Kindness  is  no  less 
efi"ectual;  the  most  malignant  enemy  cannot  always  withstand 
it.  The  true  and  Christian  method,  therefore,  to  subdue  an 
enemy  is,  to  "  evercome  evil  with  good."  This  interpretation, 
which  suits  so  well  the  whole  context,  seems  to  be  rendered 
necessary  by  the  following  verse,  which  is  a  repetition  of  the 
previous  injunctions  in  plainer  and  more  general  terms.  The 
sentiment  which  the  verse  thus  explained  expresses,  is  also 
more  in  harmony  with  the  spirit  of  the  gospel.  "  Vincere  dulee 
et  prceclarum  est.  Optimam  autem  vincendi  rationem  sapientis- 
sime  docet  Salomo  (Prov.  xxv.  21)  jubens  nos  esurientibus 
inimicis  cibum,  sitientibus  potum  prgebere :  quia  beneficiis  eos 
devincientes  fortius  superabimus,  quam  qui  hostem  a  vallo  et 
moenibus  flammis  superjectis  arcent  et  repellunt."  De  Brais. 

Among  the  numerous  striking  classical  illustrations  of  the 
sentiment  of  this  verse,  quoted  by  Wetstein,  are  the  following: 
Justinus,  XI.  12,  8,  "  Tunc  Darius  se  ratus  vere  victum,  cum 
post  praelia  etiam  beneficiis  ab  hoste  superaretur."  Ccesar  ap. 
Cic.  ad  Atticum,  IX.  8,  "Haec  nova  sit  ratio  vincendi,  ut 
misericordia  nos  muniamus,  id  quemadmodum  fieri  possit,  non* 
nulla  mi  in  mentem  veniunt,  et  multa  reperiri  possunt."  Seneca 
de  Beneficiis,  VII.  31,  "  Vincit  males  pertinax  bonitas,  nee  quis- 
quam  tam  duri  infestique  adversus  diligenda  animi  est,  ut  etiam 
vi  victus  bonos  non  amet."  32,  "Ingratus  est — huic  ipsi  bene- 
ficium  dabo  iterum,  et  tanquam  bonus  agricola  cura  cultuque 
sterilitatem  soli  vincam."  De  Ira,  II.  32,  "Non  enim  ut  in 
beneficiis  honestum  est  merita  meritis  repensare,  ita  injurias 
injuriis;  illic  vinci  turpe  est,  hie  vincere." 

Vebse  21.  JSe  not  overcome  of  evil,  but  overcome  evil  with 
good.  It  is  only  by  disconnecting  this  verse  from  the  preceding, 
and  considering  it  as  nearly  independent  of  it,  that  any  plausi- 
bility can  be  given  to  the  first  interpretation  mentioned  above, 
of  ver.  20.     That  it  is  not  thus  independent  of  it,  almost  every 


634  ROMANS  XII.  9—21. 

reader  must  feel.  '  We  are  not  to  conquer  evil  by  evil,  but  to  ♦" 
treat  our  enemies  with  kindness.  Thus  we  shall  most  effectually 
subdue  them.  Do  not  therefore  allow  yourself  to  be  overcome 
of  evil  (i.  e.,  to  be  provoked  to  the  indulgence  of  a  spirit  of 
retaliation,)  but  overcome  evil  with  good;  subdue  your  enemies 
by  kindness,  not  by  injuries.' 

DOCTRINE. 

1.  Love  is  the  fulfilling  of  the  law;  it  leads  to  the  avoiding 
of  every  thing  injurious  to  our  neighbour,  and  to  sedulous 
attention  to  every  thing  adapted  to  promote  his  welfare, 
ver.  9. 

2.  The  relation  in  which  Christians  stand  to  each  other,  is 
that  of  members  of  the  same  family.  As,  however,  it  is  not  a 
relation  constituted  by  birth,  nor  secured  by  the  adoption  of  a 
name,  there  is  no  evidence  of  its  existence  but  that  which  con- 
sists in  the  exercise  of  that  'brotherly  affection'  (that  spiritual 
axopyrj)  which  brethren  in  Christ  feel  for  each  other,  ver.  10. 

3.  Eeligion  is  the  soul  of  morality,  without  which  it  is  but  a 
lovely  corpse.  Our  moral  duties  we  must  perform  as  "serving 
the  Lord."  The  religious  affections  and  emotions  do  not  super- 
cede those  of  a  simply  benevolent  or  social  character,  but  mingle 
with  them,  and  elevate  all  social  and  relative  duties  into  acts  of 
religion  and  genuine  morality,  ver.  11. 

4.  The  source  of  our  life  is  in  God ;  without  intercourse  with 
him,  therefore,  we  cannot  derive  those  supplies  of  grace  which 
are  requisite  to  preserve  the  spirit  of  piety  in  our  hearts,  and 
to  send  a  vital  influence  through  the  various  duties  and  avoca- 
tions of  life.  Hence  the  absolute  necessity  of  being  "instant 
in  prayer,"  ver.  12. 

5.  God  has  made  of  one  blood  all  men  that  dwell  upon  the 
face  of  the  earth.  There  is  in  this  fact  of  a  common  origin, 
and  the  possession  of  a  common  nature,  a  sufficient  ground  for 
the  inculcation  of  an  universal  sympathy  with  all  our  fellow 
men.  As  he  is  no  true  Christian  who  is  destitute  of  a  genuine 
sympathy  for  his  fellow  Christians,  so  he  is  very  far  from  being 
a  man  such  as  God  approves,  who  does  not  "rejoice  with  them 
that  do  rejoice,  and  weep  with  them  that  weep,"  ver.  15. 

6.  A  wrong  estimate  of  ourselves  is  a  fruitful  source  of  evil. 


ROMANS  XII.  9—21.  635 

^  Viewed  in  relation  to  God,  and  in  our  own  absolute  insignifi- 
cance, we  have  little  reason  to  be  wise  or  important  in  our  own 
conceits.  A  proper  self-knowledge  will  preserve  us  from  pride, 
ambition,  and  contempt  of  others,  ver.  16. 

7.  Abstaining  from  evil  is  but  one  half  of  duty.  It  is  not 
enough  to  avoid  imprecating  evil  upon  our  enemies ;  we  must 
sincerely  desire  and  pray  for  their  welfare.  Nor  is  it  sufficient 
not  to  recompense  evil  for  evil ;  we  must  return  good  for  evil, 
vs.  17—21. 

8.  The  prerogatives  of  judgment  and  vengeance  belong  to 
God,  we  have  no  right,  therefore,  to  arrogate  them  to  ourselves, 
except  in  those  cases  in  which,  for  his  glory  and  the  good  of 
society,  he  has  given  us  authority.  All  condemnation  of  others 
for  self-gratification,  and  all  private  revenge  is  inconsistent  with 
the  gospel,  vs.  11 — 21. 

REMARKS. 

1.  Christians  should  never  forget  that  faith  without  works  is 
dead.  It  is  not  more  important  to  believe  what  God  has 
revealed,  than  to  do  what  he  has  commanded.  A  faith,  there- 
fore, which  does  not  produce  love,  kindness,  sympathy,  hu- 
mility, the  forgiveness  of  injuries,  &c.,  can  do  us  little  good, 
vs.  9—21. 

2.  It  is  peculiarly  characteristic  of  the  spirit  of  the  gospel 
that  it  turns  the  heart  towards  others,  and  away  from  our  own 
interests.  Self  is  not  the  Christian's  centre;  men  are  loved 
because  they  are  men.  Christians  because  they  are  Christians; 
the  former  with  sincere  sympathy  and  benevolence,  the  latter 
with  brotherly  afi"ection.  The  happiness  and  feelings  of  others, 
the  gospel  teaches  us  to  consult  in  small,  as  well  as  in  great 
matters,  anticipating  each  other  in  all  acts  of  kindness  and 
attention,  vs.  9 — 13. 

3.  The  benevolence  of  the  gospel  is  active  and  religious ;  it 
leads  to  constant  efforts,  and  is  imbued  with  a  spirit  of  piety, 
ver.  11. 

4.  We  must  remember  that  without  Christ  we  can  do 
nothing ;  that  it  is  not  we  that  live,  but  Christ  that  liveth  in  us. 
If,  therefore,  we  attempt  to  discharge  the  duties  here  enjoined 
apart  from  him,  we  shall  be  as  a  branch  severed  from  the  vine ; 


636  ROMANS  Xlt.  9—21. 

and  unless  we  are  "instant  in  prayer,"  this  union  with  Christ 
cannot  be  kept  up,  ver.  12. 

5.  Alms-giving  and  hospitality,  in  some  ages  of  the  church, 
have  been  unduly  exalted,  as  though  they  were  the  whole  of 
benevolence,  and  the  greater  part  of  piety.  While  we  avoid 
this  extreme,  we  should  remember  that  we  are  stewards  of 
God,  and  that  "Whoso  hath  this  world's  good,  and  seeth  his 
brother  have  need,  and  shutteth  up  his  bowels  of  compassion 
from  him,  hath  not  the  love  of  God  dwelling  in  him,"  ver.  13. 
1  John  iii.  17. 

6.  One  of  the  most  beautiful  exhibitions  of  the  character  of 
our  Saviour  was  afforded  by  his  conduct  under  persecution. 
"He  was  led  as  a  lamb  to  the  slaughter;"  "when  he  was 
reviled,  he  reviled  not  again ;  when  he  suffered,  he  threatened 
not."  Even  martyrs  dying  for  the  truth  have  not  always  been 
able  to  avoid  the  prediction  of  evil  to  their  persecutors ;  so 
much  easier  is  it  to  abstain  from  recompensing  evil  for  evil,  than 
really  to  love  and  pray  for  the  good  of  our  enemies.  This, 
however,  is  Christian  duty,  such  is  the  spirit  of  the  gospel. 
Just  so  far,  therefore,  as  we  find  our  hearts  indisposed  to  bless 
those  who  curse  us,  or  inclined  to  indulge  even  a  secret  satis- 
faction when  evil  comes  upon  them,  are  we  unchristian  in  out 
temper,  vs.  19 — 21. 

7.  Nothing  is  so  powerful  as  goodness ;  it  is  the  most  effica- 
cious means  to  subdue  enemies,  and  put  down  opposition.  Men 
whose  minds  can  withstand  argument,  and  whose  hearts  rebel 
against  threats,  are  not  proof  against  the  persuasive  influence 
of  unfeigned  love ;  there  is,  therefore,  no  more  important  col- 
lateral reason  for  being  good,  than  that  it  increases  our  power 
to  do  good,  vs»  20 — 21. 


ROMANS  XIII.  1.  637 


CHAPTER    XIII. 

CONTENTS. 

The  chapter  treats  mainly  of  our  political  duties.  From  ver. 
1  to  ver.  7  inclusive,  the  apostle  enforces  the  duties  which  we 
owe  to  civil  magistrates.  From  ver.  8  to  ver.  10,  he  refers  to 
the  more  general  obligations  under  which  Christians  are  placed, 
but  still  with  special  reference  to  their  civil  and  social  relations. 
From  ver.  11  to  the  end  of  the  chapter,  he  enjoins  an  exem- 
plary and  holy  deportment. 


ROMANS  XIII.  1—14. 

ANALYSIS. 

The  duty  of  obedience  to  those  in  authority  is  enforced, 

1.  By  the  consideration  that  civil  government  is  a  divine  insti- 
tution, and,  therefore,  resistance  to  magistrates  in  the  exercise 
of  their  lawful   authority  is    disobedience   to    God,   vs.   1,  2. 

2.  From  the  end  or  design  of  their  appointment,  which  is  to 
promote  the  good  of  society,  to  be  a  terror  to  evil  doers,  and  a 
praise  to  them  that  do  well,  vs.  3,  4.  3.  Because  such  subjec- 
tion is  a  moral,  as  well  as  civil  duty,  ver.  5.  On  these  grounds 
the  payment  of  tribute  or  taxes,  and  general  deference,  are  to 
be  cheerfully  rendered,  vs.  6,  7. 

Christians  are  bound  not  only  to  be  obedient  to  those  in 
authority,  but  also  to  perform  all  social  and  relative  duties, 
especially  that  of  love,  which  includes  and  secures  the  obser- 
vance of  all  others,  vs.  8 — 10.  A  pure  and  exemplary  life  as 
members  of  society  is  enforced  by  the  consideration  that  the 
night  is  far  spent  and  that  the  day  is  at  hand,  that  the  time  of 
sufifering  and  trial  is  nearly  over,  and  that  of  deliverance  ap- 
proaching, vs.  11 — 14. 

COMMENTARY 
Verse  1.    Let  every  soul  he  subject   to  the  MgJier  powers. 
The  expression  evert/  soul  is  often  used  as  eq[uivalent  to  evert/ 


638  ROMANS  XIII.  1. 

one;  it  is  at  times,  however,  emphatic,  and  such  is  probably  the 
case  in  this  passage.  By  higher  powers  are  most  commonly 
and  naturally  understood  those  in  authority,  without  reference 
to  their  grade  of  office,  or  their  character.  We  are  to  be 
subject  not  only  to  the  supreme  magistrates,  but  to  all  who 
have  authority  over  us.  The  abstract  word  powers  or  authori- 
ties (i^ouffcac)  is  used  for  those  who  are  invested  with  power, 
Luke  xii.  11,  Eph.  i.  21,  iii.  10,  &c.,  &c.  The  word  (dnepk^cov) 
rendered  higher,  is  applied  to  any  one  who,  in  dignity  and 
authority,  excels  us.  In  1  Peter  ii.  13,  it  is  applied  to  the 
king  as  supreme,  i.  e.,  superior  to  all  other  magistrates.  But 
here  one  class  of  magistrates  is  not  brought  into  comparison 
with  another,  but  they  are  spoken  of  as  being  over  other  men 
who  are  not  in  office.  It  is  a  very  unnatural  interpretation 
which  makes  this  word  refer  to  the  character  of  the  magistrates, 
as  though  the  sense  were,  'Be  subject  to  good  magistrates.' 
This  is  contrary  to  the  usage  of  the  term,  and  inconsistent  with 
the  context.  Obedience  is  not  enjoined  on  the  ground  of  the 
personal  merit  of  those  in  authority,  but  on  the  ground  of  their 
official  station. 

There  was  peculiar  necessity,  during  the  apostolic  age,  for 
inculcating  the  duty  of  obedience  to  civil  magistrates.  This 
necessity  arose  in  part  from  the  fact  that  a  large  portion  of  the 
converts  to  Christianity  had  been  Jews,  and  were  peculiarly 
indisposed  to  submit  to  the  heathen  authorities.  This  indispo- 
sition (as  far  as  it  was  peculiar)  arose  from  the  prevailing 
impression  among  them,  that  this  subjection  was  unlawful,  or 
at  least  highly  derogatory  to  their  character  as  the  people  of 
God,  who  had  so  long  lived  under  a  theocracy.  In  Deut. 
xvii.  15,  it  is  said,  "  Thou  shalt  in  any  wise  set  him  king  over 
thee,  whom  the  Lord  thy  God  shall  choose;  one  from  among 
thy  brethren  shalt  thou  set  king  over  thee ;  thou  shalt  not  set 
a  stranger  over  thee,  which  is  not  thy  brother."  It  was  a 
question,  therefore,  constantly  agitated  among  them,  "Is  it 
lawful  to  pay  tribute  unto  Csesar,  or  not?"  A  question  which 
the  great  majority  were  at  least  secretly  inclined  to  answer  in 
the  negative.  Another  source  of  the  restlessness  of  the  Jews 
under  a  foreign  yoke,  was  the  idea  which  they  entertained  of 
the  nature  of  the  Messiah's  kingdom.    As  they  expected  a  tem- 


ROMANS  XIIL  1.  639 

poral  Prince,  whose  kingdom  should  be  of  this  world,  they  were 
ready  to  rise  in  rebellion  at  the  call  of  every  one  who  cried,  "  I 
am  Christ."  The  history  of  the  Jews  at  this  period  shows  how 
great  was  the  effect  produced  by  these  and  similar  causes,  on 
their  feelings  towards  the  Roman  government.  They  were  con- 
tinually breaking  out  into  tumults,  which  led  to  their  expulsion 
from  Rome,*  and,  finally,  to  the  utter  destruction  of  Jerusalem. 
It  is  therefore  not  a  matter  of  surprise,  that  converts  from 
among  such  a  people  should  need  the  injunction,  "Be  subject 
to  the  higher  powers."  Besides  the  effect  of  their  previous 
opinions  and  feelings,  there  is  something  in  the  character  of 
Christianity  itself,  and  in  the  incidental  results  of  the  excite- 
ment which  it  occasions,  to  account  for  the  repugnance  of  many 
of  the  early  Christians  to  submit  to  their  civil  rulers.  They 
wrested,  no  doubt,  the  doctrine  of  Christian  liberty,  as  they  did 
other  doctrines,  to  suit  their  own  inclinations.  This  result, 
however,  is  to  be  attributed  not  to  religion,  but  to  the  improper 
feelings  of  those  into  whose  minds  the  form  of  truth,  without  its 
full  power,  had  been  received. 

For  there  is  no  poiver  hut  of  Grod;  and  the  powers  that  he  are 
ordained  of  Grod.  Ou  ydp  eazeu  k^ouaia  ei  [rq  dno  d^eou.  This 
is  a  very  comprehensive  proposition.  All  authority  is  of  God. 
No  man  has  any  rightful  power  over  other  men,  which  is  not 
derived  from  God.  All  human  power  is  delegated  and  minis- 
terial. This  is  true  of  parents,  of  magistrates,  and  of  church 
oflScers.  This,  however,  is  not  all  the  passage  means.  It  not 
only  asserts  that  all  government  {i^ouaia,  authority)  is  {dnb  deou) 
derived  from  God,  but  that  every  magistrate  is  of  God  ;  that  is, 
his  authority  is  jure  divino.  The  word  i^ouma  is  evidently,  in 
this  connection,  used  in  a  concrete  sense.  This  is  plain  from 
the  use  of  the  word  in  the  other  clauses  of  the  verse.  "  The 
higher  powers,"  and  "the  powers  that  be,"  are  concrete  terms, 
meaning  those  invested  with  power.  Compare  vs.  3,  4,  where 
"rulers"  and  "ministers"  are  substituted  for  the  abstract 
"powers."  The  doctrine  here  taught  is  the  ground  of  the 
injunction  contained  in  the  first  clause  of  the  verse.     We  are 

*  Suetonius,  Claud.  25,  says,  "Judaeos  impulsore  Chresto  assidue  tumuUu- 
antes  (Claudius)  Roma  expulit;"  see  Acts  xviii.  2. 


640  ROMANS  XIII.  2. 

to  obey  magistrates,  because  they  derive  their  authority  from 
God.  Not  only  is  human  government  a  divine  institution,  but 
the  form  in  which  that  government  exists,  and  the  persons  by 
whom  its  functions  are  exercised,  are  determined  by  his  pro- 
vidence. All  magistrates  of  whatever  grade  are  to  be  regarded 
as  acting  by  divine  appointment;  not  that  God  designates 
the  individuals,  but  that  it  being  his  will  that  there  should  be 
magistrates,  every  person,  who  is  in  point  of  fact  clothed  with 
authority,  is  to  be  regarded  as  having  a  claim  to  obedience, 
founded  on  the  will  of  God.  In  like  manner,  the  authority 
of  parents  over  their  children,  of  husbands  over  their  wives, 
of  masters  over  their  servants,  is  of  God's  ordination.  There 
is  no  limitation  to  the  injunction  in  this  verse,  so  far  as  the 
objects  of  obedience  are  concerned,  although  there  is  as  to 
the  extent  of  the  obedience  itself.  That  is,  we  are  to  obey  all 
who  are  in  actual  authority  over  us,  whether  their  authority  be 
legitimate  or  usurped,  whether  they  are  just  or  unjust.  The 
actual  reigning  emperor  was  to  be  obeyed  by  the  Roman  Chris- 
tians, whatever  they  might  think  as  to  his  title  to  the  sceptre. 
But  if  he  transcended  his  authority,  and  required  them  to  wor- 
ship idols,  they  were  to  obey  God  rather  than  man.  This  is 
the  limitation  to  all  human  authority.  Whenever  obedience  to 
man  is  inconsistent  with  obedience  to  God,  then  disobedience 
becomes  a  duty. 

Verse  2.  Whoso,  therefore,  resisteth  the  power,  resisteth  the 
ordinance  of  God.  This  is  an  obvious  inference  from  the 
doctrine  of  the  preceding  verse.  If  it  is  the  will  of  God  that 
there  should  be  civil  government,  and  persons  appointed  to 
exercise  authority  over  others,  it  is  plain  that  to  resist  such 
persons  in  the  exercise  of  their  lawful  authority  is  an  act  of 
disobedience  to  God. 

And  they  that  resist  shall  receive  to  themselves  damnation. 
This  also  is  an  obvious  conclusion  from  the  preceding.  If  dis- 
obedience is  a  sin,  it  will  be  punished.  The  word  (xpc/xa)  ren- 
dered damnation,  means  simply  sentence,  judicial  decision; 
whether  favourable  or  adverse,  depends  on  the  context.  Here 
it  is  plain  it  means  a  sentence  of  condemnation.  He  shall  be 
condemned,  and,  by  implication,  punished.  As  the  word 
damnation  is  by  modern  usage  restricted  to  the  final  and  eternal 


ROMANS  XIIL  3.  641 

condemnation  of  the  wicked,  it  is  unsuited  to  this  passage  and 
some  others  in  which  it  occurs  in  our  version ;  see  1  Cor.  xi.  29. 
Paul  does  not  refer  to  the  punishment  which  the  civil  magis- 
trate may  inflict;  for  he  is  speaking  of  disobedience  to  those  in 
authority  as  a  sin  against  God,  which  he  will  punish. 

It  is  clear  that  this  passage  (vs.  1,  2)  is  applicable  to  men 
living  under  every  form  of  government,  monarchical,  aristo- 
cratical,  or  democratical,  in  all  their  various  modifications. 
Those  who  are  in  authority  are  to  be  obeyed  within  their 
sphere,  no  matter  how  or  by  whom  appointed.  It  is  the  oibacu 
k^oumai,  the  powers  that  be,  the  de  facto  government,  that  is  to 
be  regarded  as,  for  the  time  being,  ordained  of  God.  It  was  to 
Paul  a  matter  of  little  importance  whether  the  Roman  emperor 
was  appointed  by  the  senate,  the  army,  or  the  people ;  whether 
the  assumption  of  the  imperial  authority  by  Csesar  was  just  or 
unjust,  or  whether  his  successors  had  a  legitimate  claim  to  the 
throne  or  not.  It  was  his  object  to  lay  down  the  simple  prin- 
ciple, that  magistrates  are  to  be  obeyed.  The  extent  of  this 
obedience  is  to  be  determined  from  the  nature  of  the  case. 
They  are  to  be  obeyed  as  magistrates,  in  the  exercise  of  their 
lawful  authority.  When  Paul  commands  wives  to  obey  their 
husbands,  they  are  required  to  obey  them  as  husbands,  not  as 
masters,  nor  as  kings;  children  are  to  obey  their  parents  as 
parents,  not  as  sovereigns;  and  so  in  every  other  case.  This 
passage,  therefore,  affords  a  very  slight  foundation  for  the  doc- 
trine of  passive  obedience. 

Verse  3.  For  rulers  are  not  a  terror  to  good  works,  but  to 
evil.  This  verse  is  not  to  be  connected  with  the  second,  but 
with  the  first,  as  it  assigns  an  additional  reason  for  the  duty 
there  enjoined.  Magistrates  are  to  be  obeyed,  for  such  is  the 
will  of  God,  and  because  they  are  appointed  to  repress  evil  and 
to  promote  good.  There  is  a  ground,  therefore,  in  the  very 
nature  of  their  office,  why  they  should  not  be  resisted. 

Wilt  thou  then  not  be  afraid  of  the  power?  do  that  which  is 
good,  and  thou  shall  have  praise  of  the  same.  That  is,  govern- 
ment is  not  an  evil  to  be  feared,  except  by  evil  doers.  As  the 
magistrates  are  appointed  for  the  punishment  of  evil,  the  way 
to  avoid  suffering  from  their  authority  is  not  to  resist  it,  but 
to  do  that  which  is  good.  Paul  is  speaking  of  the  legitimate 
41 


612  ROMANS  XIII.  4,  5. 

design  of  government,  not  of  the  abuse  of  power  by  wicked 
men. 

Verse  4.  For  he  is  the  minister  of  G-odfor  thee  for  good,  &c. 
This  whole  verse  is  but  an  amplification  of  the  preceding. 
'  Government  is  a  benevolent  institution  of  God,  designed  for 
the  benefit  of  men;  and,  therefore,  should  be  respected  and 
obeyed.  As  it  has,  however,  the  rightful  authority  to  punish, 
it  is  to  be  feared  by  those  that  do  evil.'  For  good,  i.  e.,  to 
secure  or  promote  your  welfare.  Magistrates  or  rulers  are  not 
appointed  for  their  own  honour  or  advantage,  but  for  the  benefit 
of  society,  and,  therefore,  while  those  in  subjection  are  on  this 
account  to  obey  them,  they  themselves  are  taught,  what  those 
in  power  are  so  apt  to  forget,  that  they  are  the  servants  of  the 
people  as  well  as  the  servants  of  God,  and  that  the  welfare  of 
society  is  the  only  legitimate  object  which  they  as  rulers  are  at 
liberty  to  pursue. 

But  if  thou  do  that  which  is  evil,  be  afraid;  for  he  beareth 
not  the  stvord  in  vain;  a  revenger  to  execute  wrath  (er'c  ^PT^^i 
i.  e.,  for  the  purpose  of  punishment)  upon  him  that  doeth  evil. 
As  one  part  of  the  design  of  government  is  to  protect  the  good, 
so  the  other  is  to  punish  the  wicked.  The  existence  of  this 
delegated  authority  is,  therefore,  a  reason  why  men  should 
abstain  from  the  commission  of  evil.  He  beareth  not  the  sword 
in  vain,  i.  e.,  it  is  not  in  vain  that  he  is  invested  with  authority 
to  punish.  Thci  reference  is  not  to  the  dagger  worn  by  the 
Roman  emperors  as  a  sign  of  office,  as  fid-^acpa  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament always  means  sword,  which  of  old  was  the  symbol  of 
authority,  and  specially  of  the  right  of  life  and  death.  As  the 
common  method  of  inflicting  capital  punishment  was  by  decapi- 
tation with  a  sword,  that  instrument  is  mentioned  as  the  symbol 
of  the  right  of  punishment,  and,  as  many  infer  from  this 
passage,  of  the  right  of  capital  punishment.  "Insignis  locus 
ad  jus  gladii  comprobandum ;  nam  si  Dominus  magistratura 
armando  gladii  quoque  usum  illi  mandavit,  quoties  sontes 
capitali  poena  vindicat,  exercendo  Dei  ultionem,  ejus  mandatis 
obsequitur.  Contendunt  igitur  cum  Deo  qui  sanguinem  nocen- 
tium  hominum  effundi  nefas  esse  putant."   Calvin. 

Verse  5.  WTierefore  ye  must  needs  be  subject,  not  only  for 
wrath,  but  also  for  conscience'  sake.     That  is,   subjection  to 


ROMANS  XIII.  6.  643 

magistrates  is  not  only  a  civil  duty  enforced  by  penal  statutes, 
but  also  a  religious  duty,  and  part  of  our  obedience  to  God. 
For  wrath,  i.  e.,  from  fear  of  punishment.  For  conscience  sake, 
i.  e.,  out  of  regard  to  God,  from  conscientious  motives.  In  like 
manner,  Paul  enforces  all  relative  and  social  duties  on  religious 
grounds.  Children  are  to  obey  their  parents,  because  it  is 
right  in  the  sight  of  God ;  and  servants  are  to  be  obedient  to 
their  master,  as  unto  Christ,  doing  the  will  of  God  from  the 
heart,  Eph.  vi.  1,  5,  6. 

Verse  6.  For,  for  this  cause,  pay  ye  tribute  also.  This  verse 
may  be  connected,  by  the  words  [Sio.  touto)  rendered  for  this 
cause,  with  the  preceding,  thus,  '  Wherefore  (i.  e.,  for  conscience 
sake,)  ye  should  pay  tribute  also.'  But  it  is  better  to  consider 
this  clause  as  containing  an  inference  from  the  foregoing  exhi- 
bition of  the  nature  and  design  of  civil  government:  'Since 
government  is  constituted  for  the  benefit  of  society,  for  the 
punishment  of  evil  doers,  and  for  the  praise  of  those  that  do 
well,  ye  should  cheerfully  pay  the  contributions  requisite  for  its 
support.' 

For  they  are  the  ministers  of  Crod,  attending  continually  on 
this  very  thing.  This  clause  introduces  another  reason  for  the 
payment  of  tribute.  They,  not  the  'tax-gatherers,  but  ol 
apyovxBZ,  the  rulers,  to  whom  the  tribute  is  due.  Magistrates 
are  not  only  appointed  for  the  public  good,  but  they  are  the 
ministers  of  God,  and  consequently  it  is  his  will  that  we  should 
contribute  whatever  is  necessary  to  enable  them  to  discharge 
their  duty.  The  word  [Xeizoupi'oc)  rendered  ministers,  means 
public  servants,  men  appointed  for  any  public  work,  civil  or 
religious.  Among  the  Greek  democratical  states,  especially  at 
Athens,  those  persons  were  particularly  so  called,  who  were 
required  to  perform  some  public  service  at  their  own  expense. 
It  is  used  in  Scripture  in  a  general  sense,  for  servants  or  minis- 
ters, Rom.  XV.  16,  Heb.  i.  7,  viii.  2.  The  words  «'c  auzo  rouro, 
to  this  very  thing,  may  refer  to  tax-gathering.  The  magistrates 
are  divinely  commissioned,  or  authorized  to  collect  tribute. 
This  is  necessary  to  the  support  of  government ;  and  govern- 
ment being  a  divine  institution,  God,  in  ordaining  the  end,  has 
thereby  ordained  the  means.  It  is  because  magistrates,  in  the 
collection  of  taxes,  act  as  the  XsiToupj-oc  ??£oD,  the  executive 


644  ROMANS  XIII.  7,  8. 

officers  of  Grod,  that  we  are  bound  to  pay  them.  Others  make 
the  aoTo  touto  refer  to  the  hizoupyia,  or  service  of  God,  which 
is  implied  in  magistrates  being  called  Xeczoopyoi.  '  They  are  the 
ministers  of  God  attending  constantly  to  their  ministry.'  The 
former  interpretation  is  the  more  consistent  with  the  context. 

Verse  7.  Render  therefore  to  all  their  dues:  tribute  to  whom 
tribute;  custom  to  whom  custom;  fear  to  whom  fear;  honour  to 
whom  honour.  '  Such  being  the  will  of  God,  and  such  the 
benevolent  design  of  civil  government,  render  to  magistrates 
(and  to  all  others)  what  properly  belongs  to  them,  whether 
pecuniary  contribution,  reverence,  or  honour.'  The.  word  all 
seems,  from  the  context,  to  have  special  reference  to  all  in 
authority,  though  it  is  not  necessary  to  confine  it  to  such  per- 
sons exclusively.  The  word  [(popoq)  tribute  is  applied  properly 
to  land  and  capitation  tax ;  and  (ri/ioc)  to  the  imposts  levied  on 
merchandise.  The  words  {(pb^oc;)  fear,  and  {zcfXTj)  honour,  are 
generally  considered  in  this  connection  as  differing  only  in 
degree ;  the  former  expressing  the  reverence  to  superiors,  the 
latter  the  respect  to  equals. 

.  Verse  8.  Owe  no  man  any  thing,  but  to  love  one  another,  &c. 
That  is,  acquit  yourselves  of  all  obligations,  except  love,  which 
is  a  debt  that  must  remain  ever  due.  This  is  the  common,  and 
considering  the  context,  which  abounds  with  commands,  the 
most  natural  interpretation  of  this  passage.  Others,  however, 
take  the  verb  {d(ptiXzTB)  as  in  the  indicative,  instead  of  the 
imperative  mood,  and  understand  the  passage  thus:  'Ye  owe 
no  man  any  thing  but  love  (which  includes  all  other  duties,)  for 
he  that  loves  another  fulfils  the  law.'  This  gives  a  good  sense, 
when  this  verse  is  taken  by  itself;  but  viewed  in  connection 
with  those  which  precede  and  follow,  the  common  interpretation 
is  much  more  natural.  Besides,  "  the  indicative  would  require 
obdevt  oudev,  and  not  fxyjdevl  /jtyjdeu.  The  use  of  the  subjective 
negative  shows  that  a  command  is  intended."  Meyer.  The 
idea  which  a  cursory  reader  might  be  disposed  to  attach  to 
these  words,  in  considering  them  as  a  direction  not  to  contract 
pecuniary  debts,  is  not  properly  expressed  by  them ;  although 
the  prohibition,  in  its  spirit,  includes  the  incurring  of  such 
obligations,  when  we  have  not  the  certain  prospect  of  discharg- 
ing them.     The  command,  however,  is,  'Acquit  yourselves  of 


ROMANS  XIII.  9—11.  645 

all  obligations,  tribute,  custom,  fear,  honour,  or  whatever  else 
you  may  owe,  but  remember  that  the  debt  of  love  is  still 
unpaid,  and  always  must  remain  so ;  for  love  includes  all  duty, 
since  he  that  loves  another  fulfils  the  law.'*  He  that  loveth 
another  hath  fulfilled  {TzeTr^TJptoxs)  the  law.  It  is  already  done. 
That  is,  all  the  law  contemplated,  in  its  specific  commands 
relating  to  our  social  duties,  is  attained  when  we  love  our 
neighbour  as  ourselves. 

Verse  9.  For  this,  TJiou  shalt  not  commit  adultery,  Thou 
shalt  not  kill,  Thou  shalt  not  steal.  Thou  shalt  not  bear  false 
witness,  f  Thou  shalt  not  covet;  and  if  there  be  any  other  com- 
mandment, it  is  briefly  comprehended  in  this  saying,  namely. 
Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbour  as  thyself.  This  verse  is  evidently 
a  confirmation  of  the  declaration  at  the  close  of  the  preceding 
one,  that  love  includes  all  our  social  duties.  This  is  further 
confirmed  in  the  following  verse. 

Verse  10.  Love  worketh  no  ill  to  his  neighbour,  therefore 
love  is  the  fulfilling  of  the  law.  That  is,  as  love  delights  in  the 
happiness  of  its  object,  it  efiectually  prevents  us  from  injuring 
those  we  love,  and,  consequently,  leads  us  to  fulfil  all  the  law 
requires,  because  the  law  requires  nothing  which  is  not  con- 
ducive to  the  best  interests  of  our  fellow-men.  He,  therefore, 
who  loves  his  neighbour  with  the  same  sincerity  that  he  loves 
himself,  and  consequently  treats  him  as  he  would  wish,  under 
similar  circumstances,  to  be  treated  by  him,  will  fulfil  all  that 
the  law  enjoins;  hence  the  whole  law  is  comprehended  in  this 
one  command,  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbour  as  thyself. 

Verse  11.  And  that,  knowing  the  time,  that  now  it  is  high 
time  to  awake  out  of  sleep;  for  now  is  our  salvation  nearer  than, 
when  we  believed.     From  this  verse  to  the  end  of  the  chapter, 

*  Amare;  debitum  immortale.  Si  amabitis,  nil  debitis  nam  amor  implet 
legem.  Amare,  libertas  est. — Bengel.  Argute  et  eleganter  dictum:  dilectio- 
nis  debitum  et  semper  solvitur  et  semper  manet. —  Wetstein. 

A  grateful  mind, 
By  owing  owes  not,  and  still  pays,  at  once  * 

Indebted  and  discharged. — MiltorCs  Paradise  Lost,  IV.  55. 
f  The  words  oli  ^wJ'/MfgTug^Vac  are  omitted  in  the  MSS.  A.  D.  E.  F.  G.  1,  2,  29, 
34,  36,  38,  39,  41,  43,  46,  47,  52,  and  in  the  Syriac  version.    They  are  rejected 
in  the  Complutensian  edition,  and  in  those  of  Mill,  Bengel,  Griesbach,  Knapp, 
and  Lachmann. 


646  HOMANS  XIII.  11. 

Paul  exhorts  his  readers  to  discharge  the  duties  already 
enjoined,  and  urges  on  them  to  live  a  holy  and  exemplary  life. 
The  consideration  by  which  this  exhortation  is  enforced,  is, 
that  the  night  is  far  spent,  and  that  the  day  is  at  hand,  the 
time  of  deliverance  is  fast  approaching.  The  words  {xac  touto) 
rendered  and  that,  are  by  many  considered  as  elliptical,  and 
the  word  [noie'cre)  do  is  supplied ;  'And  this  do.'  The  demon- 
strative pronoun,  however,  is  frequently  used  to  mark  the 
importance  of  the  connection  between  two  circumstances  for 
the  case  in  hand,  (Passow,  Vol.  II.  p.  319,)  and  is,  therefore, 
often  equivalent  to  the  phrases,  and  indeed,  the  more,  &c.  So 
in  this  case,  '  We  must  discharge  our  various  duties,  and  that 
knowing,'  &c.,  i.  e.,  'the  rather,  because  we  know,'  &c.;  com- 
pare Heb.  xi.  12,  1  Cor.  vi.  6,  Eph.  ii.  8.  Knowing  the 
time,  i.  e.,  considering  the  nature  and  character  of  the  period 
in  which  we  now  live.  The  original  word  {xacpoci)  does  not 
mean  time  in  the  general  sense,  but  a  portion  of  time  considered 
as  appropiate,  as  fixed,  as  short,  &.c.  Paul  immediately  explains 
himself  by  adding,  that  now  it  is  high  time  to  awake  out  of 
sleep;  it  was  the  proper  time  to  arouse  themselves  from  their 
slumbers,  and,  shaking  off  all  slothfulness,  to  address  them- 
selves earnestly  to  work.  For  now  is  our  salvation  nearer  than 
when  we  believed.  This  is  the  reason  why  it  is  time  to  be  up 
and  active,  salvation  is  at  hand.  There  are  three  leading  inter- 
pretations of  this  clause.  The  first  is,  that  it  means  that  the 
time  of  salvation,  or  special  favour  to  the  Gentiles,  and  of  the 
destruction  of  the  Jews,  was  fast  approaching.  So  Hammond, 
Whitby,  and  many  others.  But  for  this  there  is  no  foundation 
in  the  simple  meaning  of  the  words,  nor  in  the  context.  Paul 
evidently  refers  to  something  of  more  general  and  permanent 
interest  than  the  overthrow  of  the  Jewish  nation,  and  the  con- 
sequent freedom  of  the  Gentile  converts  from  their  persecutions.. 
The  night  that  was  far  spent,  was  not  the  night  of  sorrow 
arising  from  Jewish  bigotry;  and  the  day  that  was  at  hand 
was*something  brighter  and  better  than  deliverance  from  its 
power.  A  second  interpretation  very  generally  received  of  late 
is,  that  the  reference  is  to  the  second  advent  of  Christ.  It  is 
assumed  that  the  early  Christians,  and  even  the  inspired  apos- 
tles, were  under  the  constant    impression  that  Christ  was  to 


ROMANS  XIII.  11.  647 

appear  in  person  for  the  establishment  of  his  kingdom,  before 
that  generation  passed  away.  This  assumption  is  founded  on 
such  passages  as  the  following:  Phil.  iv.  5,  "The  Lord  is  at 
hand;"  1  Thess.  iv.  17,  "We  that  are  alive  and  remain  shall 
be  caught  up  together  with  them  to  meet  the  Lord  in  the  air;" 
1  Cor.  XV.  51,  "We  shall  not  all  sleep,  but  we  shall  all  be 
changed,"  &c.     With  regard  to  this  point,  we  may  remark, 

1.  That  neither  the  early  Christians  nor  the  apostles  knew 
when  the  second  advent  of  Christ  was  to  take  place.  "  But 
of  that  day  and  hour  knoweth  no  man,  no,  nor  the  angels  of 
heaven,  but  my  Father  only.  But  as  the  days  of  Noe  were, 
80  shall  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  man  be,"  Matt.  xxiv.  36,  37, 
"  They  (the  apostles)  asked  of  him,  saying,  Lord,  wilt  thou  at 
this  time  restore  the  kingdom  to  Israel  ?  And  he  said  unto 
them.  It  is  not  for  you  to  know  the  times  or  the  seasons  which 
the  Father  hath  put  in  his  own  power,"  Acts  i.  6,  7.  "But  of 
the  times  and  seasons,  brethren,  ye  have  no  need  that  I  write 
unto  you ;  for  ye  yourselves  know  perfectly  that  the  day  of  the 
Lord  so  cometh   as   a  thief  in  the  night,"  1  Thess.  v.  1,  2. 

2.  Though  they  knew  not  when  it  was  to  be,  they  knew  that  it 
was  not  to  happen  immediately,  nor  until  a  great  apostacy  had 
occurred.  "Now  we  beseech  you,  brethren,  by  (or  concerning) 
the  coming  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  our  gathering  together  to 
him,  that  ye  be  not  soon  shaken  in  mind  ...  as  that  the  day 
of  Christ  is  at  hand.  Let  no  man  deceive  you  by  any  means : 
for  that  day  shall  not  come,  except  there  come  a  falling  away 
first,  and  that  nian  of  sin  be  revealed,"  &c.,  2  Thess.  ii.  1 — 3; 
and  ver.  5,  "  Remember  ye  not,  that  when  I  was  yet  with  you, 
I  told  you  these  things?"  Besides  this  distinct  assertion,  that 
the  second  advent  of  Christ  was  not  to  occur  before  the  revela- 
tion of  the  man  of  sin,  there  are  several  other  predictions  in  the 
writings  of  Paul,  which  necessarily  imply  his  knowledge  of  the 
fact,  that  the  day  of  judgment  was  not  immediately  at  hand, 
1  Tim.  iv.  1 — 5,  Rom.  xi.  25.  The  numerous  prophecies  of  the 
Old  Testament  relating  to  the  future  conversion  of  the  Jews, 
and  various  other  events,  were  known  to  the  apostles,  and  pre- 
cluded the  possibility  of  their  believing  that  the  world  was  to 
come  to  an  end  before  those  prophecies  were  fulfilled  8.  We 
are  not  to  understand  the  expressions,  day  of  tha  Lord^  the 


648  ROMANS  XIII.  11. 

appearing  of  CJirist,  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  man,  in  all  casea 
in  the  same  way.  The  dat/  of  the  Lord  is  a  very  familiar 
expression  in  the  Scriptures  to  designate  any  time  of  the 
special  manifestation  of  the  divine  presence,  either  for  judg- 
ment or  mercy ;  see  Ezek.  xiii.  5,  Joel  i.  15,  Isa.  ii.  12,  xiii.  6,  9. 
So  also  God  or  Christ  is  said  to  come  to  any  person  or  place, 
when  he  makes  any  remarkable  exhibition  of  his  power  or 
grace.  Hence  the  Son  of  man  was  to  come  for  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem,  before  the  people  of  that  generation  all  perished ; 
and  the  summons  of  death  is  sometimes  represented  as  the 
coming  of  Christ  to  judge  the  soul.  What  is  the  meaning  of 
such  expressions  must  be  determined  by  the  context,  in  each 
particular  case.  4.  It  cannot,  therefore,  be  inferred  from  such 
declarations  as  "  the  day  of  the  Lord  is  at  hand ;"  "  the  coming 
of  the  Lord  draweth  nigh;"  "the  judge  is  at  the  door,"  &c., 
that  those  who  made  them  supposed  that  the  second  advent  and 
final  judgment  were  to  take  place  immediately.  They  expressly 
assert  the  contrary,  as  has  just  been  shown.  5.  The  situation 
of  the  early  Christians  was,  in  this  respect,  similar  to  ours. 
They  believed  that  Christ  was  to  appear  the  second  time  with- 
out sin  unto  salvation ;  but  when  this  advent  was  to  take  place, 
they  did  not  know.  They  looked  and  longed  for  the  appearing 
of  the  great  God  their  Saviour,  as  we  do  now ;  and  the  prospect 
of  this  event  operated  upon  them  as  it  should  do  upon  us,  as  a 
constant  motive  to  watchfulness  and  diligence,  that  we  may  be 
found  of  him  in  peace.  There  is  nothing,  therefore,  in  the 
Scriptures,  nor  in  this  immediate  context,  which  requires  us  to 
suppose  that  Paul  intended  to  say  that  the  time  of  the  second 
advent  was  at  hand,  when  he  tells  his  readers  that  their  salva- 
tion was  nearer  than  when  they  believed. 

The  third  and  most  common,  as  well  as  the  most  natural  inter- 
pretation of  this  passage  is,  that  Paul  meant  simply  to  remind 
them  that  the  time  of  deliverance  was  near ;  that  the  diflBculties 
and  sins  with  which  they  had  to  contend,  would  soon  be  dis- 
persed as  the  shades  and  mists  of  night  before  the  rising  day. 
The  salvation,  therefore,  here  intended,  is  the  consummation  of 
the  work  of  Christ  in  their  deliverance  from  this  present  evil 
world,  and  introduction  into  the  purity  and  blessedness  of 
heaven.     Eternity  is  just  at  hand,  is  the  solemn  consideration 


ROMANS  XIII.  12,  13.  649 

that  Paul  urges  on  his  readers  as  a  motive  for  devotion  and 
diligence. 

Verse  12.  The  night  is  far  spent,  the  day  is  at  hand:  let  us 
therefore  east  off  the  works  of  darkness^  and  let  us  put  on  the 
armour  of  light.  The  general  sentiment  of  this  verse  is  very 
obvious.  Night  or  darkness  is  the  common  emblem  of  sin  and 
sorrow ;  day  or  light,  that  of  knowledge,  purity,  and  happiness. 
The  meaning  of  the  first  clause  therefore  is,  that  the  time  of 
sin  and  sorrow  is  nearly  over,  that  of  holiness  and  happiness  is 
at  hand.  The  particular  form  and  application  of  this  general 
sentiment  depends,  however,  on  the  interpretation  given  to  the 
preceding  verse.  If  that  verse  refers  to  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
salem, then  Paul  means  to  say,  that  the  night  of  persecution 
was  nearly  gone,  and  the  day  of  peace  and  prosperity  to  the 
Gentile  churches  was  at  hand.  But  if  ver.  11  refers  to  final 
salvation,  then  this  verse  means,  that  the  sins  and  sorrows  of 
this  life  will  soon  be  over,  and  the  day  of  eternal  blessedness  is 
about  to  dawn.     The  latter  view  is  to  be  preferred. 

Paul  continues  this  beautiful  figure  through  the  verse.  There- 
fore let  us  cast  off  the  works  of  darkness,  and  let  us  put  on  the 
armour  of  light.  That  is,  let  us  renounce  those  things  which 
need  to  be  concealed,  and  clothe  ourselves  with  those  which  are 
suited  to  the  light.  The  works  of  darkness  are  those  works 
which  men  are  accustomed  to  commit  in  the  dark,  or  which  suit 
the  dark ;  and  armour  of  light  means  those  virtues  and  good 
deeds  which  men  are  not  ashamed  of,  because  they  will  bear  to 
be  seen.  Paul  probably  used  the  word  (pTrXa)  armour,  instead 
of  works,  because  these  virtues  constitute  the  offensive  and 
defensive  weapons  with  which  we  are  here  to  contend  against 
sin  and  evil;  see  Eph.  vi.  11.  The  words  dTzoztd^ea&ai  and 
ivduea&ai  suggest  the  idea  of  clothing.  We  are  to  cast  off  one 
set  of  garments,  and  to  put  on  another.  The  clothes  which 
belong  to  the  night  are  to  be  cast  aside,  and  we  are  to  array 
ourselves  in  those  suited  to  the  day. 

Verse  13.  Let  us  walk  honestly  as  in  the  dag:  not  in  rioting 
and  drunkenness;  not  in  chambering  and  wantonness;  not  in 
strife  and  envying.  This  verse  is  an  amplification  of  the  pre- 
ceding, stating  some  of  those  works  of  darkness  which  we  are 
to  put  off;  as  ver.  14  states  what  is  the  armour  of  light  which 


650  ROMANS  XIII.  14. 

we  are  to  put  on.  The  word  {tbay^fjfxoviOQ)  rendered  honestly, 
means  becomingly^  properly.  There  are  three  classes  of  sins 
specified  in  this  verse,  to  each  of  which  two  words  are  appro- 
priated, viz.,  intemperance,  impurity,  and  discord.  Rioting  and 
drunkenness  belong  to  the  first.  The  word  {iiaj[i0(;)  appropri- 
ately rendered  rioting,  is  used  both  in  reference  to  the  disor- 
derly religious  festivals  kept  in  honour  of  Bacchus,  and  to  the 
common  boisterous  carousing  of  intemperate  young  men,  (see 
Passow,  Vol.  I.,  p.  924.)  The  words  chambering  and  wanton- 
ness, include  all  kinds  of  uncleanness ;  and  strife  and  envying, 
all  kinds  of  unholy  emulation  and  discord. 

Verse  14.  But  put  ye  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  i.  e.,  be  as 
he  was.  To  put  on  Christ,  signifies  to  be  intimately  united  to 
him,  so  that  he,  and  not  we,  may  appear,  Gal.  iii.  27 :  '  Let  not 
your  own  evil  deeds  be  seen,  (i.  e.,  do  not  commit  such,)  but  let 
what  Christ  was,  appear  in  all  your  conduct,  as  efiectually  as 
if  clothed  with  the  garment  of  his  virtues.' 

And  make  no  provision  for  the  flesh,  to  fulfil  the  lusts  thereof. 
That  is,  let  it  not  be  your  care  to  gratify  the  flesh.  'Bj  flesh, 
in  this  passage,  is  perhaps  generally  understood  the  body;  so 
that  the  prohibition  is  confined  to  the  vicious  indulgence  of  the 
sensual  appetites.  But  there  seems  to  be  no  sufficient  reason 
for  this  restriction.  As  the  word  is  constantly  used  by  Paul 
for  whatever  is  corrupt,  and  in  the  preceding  verse  the  sins  of 
envy  and  contention  are  specially  mentioned,  it  may  be  under- 
stood more  generally,  'Do  not  indulge  the  desires  of  your  cor- 
rupt nature.' 

DOCTRINE. 

1.  Civil  government  is  a  divine  institution,  i.  e.,  it  is  the 
will  of  God  that  it  should  exist,  and  be  respected  and  obeyed, 
ver.  2. 

2.  While  'government  is  of  God,  the  form  is  of  men.'  God 
has  never  enjoined  any  one  form  obligatory  on  all  communi- 
ties ;  but  has  simply  laid  down  certain  principles,  applicable  to 
rulers  and  subjects,  under  every  form  in  which  governments 
exist,  vs.  1 — 7. 

3.  The  obedience  which  the  Scriptures  command  us  to  render 
to  our  rulers  is  not  unlimited ;  there  are  cases  in  which  disobe- 
dience is  a  duty.     This  is  evident,  first,  from  the  very  nature 


ROMANS  XIII.  1—14.  651 

of  the  case.  The  command  to  obey  magistrates  is,  from  its 
nature,  a  command  to  obey  them  as  magistrates  in  the  exercise 
of  their  rightful  authority.  They  are  not  to  be  obeyed  as 
priests  or  as  parents,  but  as  civil  rulers.  No  one  doubts  that 
the  precept,  "Children,  obey  your  parents  in  all  things,"  is  a 
command  to  obey  them  in  the  exercise  of  their  rightful  parental 
authority,  and  imposes  no  obligation  to  implicit  and  passive 
obedience.  A  parent  who  should  claim  the  power  of  a  sove- 
reign over  his  children,  would  have  no  right  to  their  obedience. 
The  case  is  still  plainer  with  regard  to  the  command,  "Wives, 
submit  to  your  own  husbands."  Secondly,  from  the  fact  that 
the  same  inspired  men  who  enjoin,  in  such  general  terms, 
obedience  to  rulers,  themselves  uniformly  and  openly  disobeyed 
them  whenever  their  commands  were  inconsistent  with  other 
and  higher  obligations.  "  We  ought  to  obey  God  rather  than 
men,"  was  the  principle  which  the  early  Christians  avowed,  and 
on  which  they  aclld.  They  disobeyed  the  Jewish  and  heathen 
authorities,  whenever  they  required  them  to  do  anything  con- 
trary to  the  will  of  God.  There  are  cases,  therefore,  in  which 
disobedience  is  a  duty.  How  far  the  rightful  authority  of  rulers 
extends,  the  precise  point  at  which  the  obligation  to  obedience 
ceases,  must  often  be  a  difficult  question ;  and  each  case  must 
be  decided  on  its  own  merits.  The  same  difficulty  exists  in 
fixing  the  limits  of  the  authority  of  parents  over  their  children, 
husbands  over  their  wives,  masters  over  their  servants.  This, 
however,  is  a  theoretical  rather  than  a  practical  difficulty.  The 
general  principles  on  which  the  question  in  regard  to  any  given 
case  is  to  be  decided  are  sufficiently  plain.  No  command  to  do 
anything  morally  wrong  can  be  binding;  nor  can  any  which 
transcends  the  rightful  authority  of  the  power  whence  it  eman- 
ates. What  that  rightful  authority  is,  must  be  determined  by 
the  institutions  and  laws  of  the  land,  or  from  prescription  and 
usage,  or  from  the  nature  and  design  of  the  office  with  which 
the  magistrate  is  invested.  The  right  of  deciding  on  all  these 
points,  and  determining  where  the  obligation  to  obedience 
ceases,  and  the  duty  of  resistance  begins,  must,  from  the 
nature  of  the  case,  rest  with  the  subject,  and  not  with  the  ruler. 
The  apostles  and  early  Christians  decided  this  point  for  them- 
selves, and  did  not  leave  the  decision  with  the  Jewish  or  Roman 


652  ROMANS  XIII.  1—14. 

authorities.    Like  all  other  questions  of  duty,  it  is  to  be  decided 
on  our  responsibility  to  God  and  our  fellow-men,  vs.  1 — 7. 

4.  The  design  of  civil  government  is  not  to  promote  the 
advantage  of  rulers,  but  of  the  ruled.  They  are  ordained  and 
invested  with  authority,  to  be  a  terror  to  evil  doers,  and  a 
praise  to  them  that  do  well.  They  are  the  ministers  of  God 
for  this  end,  and  are  appointed  for  "this  very  thing."  On  this 
ground  our  obligation  to  obedience  rests,  and  the  obligation 
ceases  when  this  design  is  systematically,  constantly,  and  noto- 
riously disregarded.  Where  unfaithfulness  on  the  part  of  the 
government  exists,  or  where  the  form  of  it  is  incompatible  with 
the  design  of  its  institution,  the  governed  must  have  a  right  to 
remedy  the  evil.  But  they  cannot  have  the  moral  right  to 
remedy  one  evil,  by  the  production  of  a  greater.  And,  there- 
fore, as  there  are  few  greater  evils  than  instability  and  uncer- 
tainty in  governments,  the  cases  in  which  revolutions  are 
justifiable  must  be  exceedingly  rare,  vs.  3 — H 

5.  The  proper  sphere  of  civil  government  is  the  civil  and 
social  relations  of  men,  and  their  temporal  welfare ;  conscience, 
and  of  course  religion,  are  beyond  its  jurisdiction,  except  so  far 
as  the  best  interests  of  civil  society  are  necessarily  connected 
with  them.  What  extent  of  ground  this  exception  covers,  ever 
has  been,  and  probably  will  ever  remain  a  matter  of  dispute. 
Still  it  is  to  be  remembered,  that  it  is  an  exception ;  religion 
and  morality,  as  such,  are  not  within  the  legitimate  sphere  of 
the  civil  authority.  To  justify  the  interference  of  the  civil 
government,  therefore,  in  any  given  case,  with  these  important 
subjects,  an  exception  must  be  made  out.  It  must  be  shown 
that  an  opinion  or  a  religion  is  not  only  false,  but  that  its  pre- 
valence is  incompatible  with  the  rights  of  those  members  of  the 
community  who  are  not  embraced  within  its  communion,  before 
the  civil  authority  can  be  authorized  to  interfere  for  its  sup- 
pression. It  is  then  to  be  suppressed,  not  as  a  religion,  but  as 
a  public  nuisance.  God  has  ordained  civil  government  for  the 
promotion  of  the  welfare  of  men  as  members  of  the  same  civil 
society;  and  parental  government,  and  the  instruction  and  dis- 
cipline of  the  church,  for  their  moral  and  religious  improve- 
ment. And  the  less  interference  there  is  between  these  two 
great  institutions,  in  the  promotion  of  their  respective  objects, 


ROMANS  XIII.  1—14.  653 

the  better.  We  do  not  find  in  the  New  Testament  any  com- 
mands addressed  to  magistrates  with  regard  to  the  suppression 
of  heresies  or  the  support  of  the  truth ;  nor,  on  the  other  hand, 
do  we  meet  with  any  directions  to  the  church  to  interfere  with 
matters  pertaining  to  the  civil  government,  vs.  3 — 6. 

6.  The  discharge  of  all  the  social  and  civil  duties  of  life  is  to 
the  Christian  a  matter  of  religious  obligation,  vs.  5 — 7. 

REMARKS. 

1.  The  Christian  religion  is  adapted  to  all  states  of  society 
and  all  forms  of  civil  government.  As  the  Spirit  of  God,  when 
it  enters  any  human  heart,  leaves  unmolested  what  is  peculiar 
to  its  individual  character,  as  far  as  it  is  innocent,  and  effects 
the  reformation  of  what  is  evil,  not  by  violence,  but  by  a  sweetly 
constraining  influence ;  so  the  religion  of  Christ,  when  it  enters 
any  community  of  men,  does  not  assail  their  form  of  govern- 
ment, whether  despotic  or  free;  and  if  there  is  anything  in 
their  institutions  inconsistent  with  its  spirit,  it  is  changed  by 
its  silent  operation  on  the  heart  and  conscience,  rather  than  by 
direct  denunciation.  It  has  thus,  without  rebellion  or  violent 
convulsions,  curbed  the  exercise  of  despotic  power,  and  wrought 
the  abolition  of  slavery  throughout  the  greater  part  of  Christen- 
dom, vs.  1 — 14. 

2.  The  gospel  is  equally  hostile  to  tyranny  and  anarchy.  It 
teaches  rulers  that  they  are  ministers  of  God  for  the  public 
good;  and  it  teaches  subjects  to  be  obedient  to  magistrates,  not 
only  for  fear,  but  also  for  conscience'  sake,  ver.  5. 

3.  God  is  to  be  recognised  as  ordering  the  affairs  of  civil 
society:  "He  removeth  kings,  and  he  setteth  up  kings;"  by 
him  "kings  reign,  and  princes  decree  justice."  It  is  enough, 
therefore,  to  secure  the  obedience  of  the  Christian,  that,  in  the 
providence  of  God,  he  finds  the  power  of  government  lodged  in 
certain  hands.  The  early  Christians  would  have  been  in  con- 
stant perplexity,  had  it  been  incumbent  on  them,  amidst  the 
frequent  poisonings  and  assassinations  of  the  imperial  palace, 
the  tumults  of  the  pretorian  guards,  and  the  proclamation  by 
contending  armies  of  rival  candidates,  to  decide  on  the  individual 
who  had  de  jure  the  power  of  the  sword,  before  they  could  con- 
scientiously obey,  vs.  1 — 5. 


654  ROMANS  XIV.  1—23. 

4.  When  rulers  become  a  terror  to  the  good,  and  a  praise  to 
them  that  do  evil,  they  may  still  be  tolerated  and  obeyed,  not 
however,  of  right,  but  because  the  remedy  may  be  worse  than 
the  disease,  vs.  3,  4. 

5.  Did  genuine  Christian  love  prevail,  it  would  secure  the 
right  discharge,  not  only  of  the  duties  of  rulers  towards  their 
subjects,  and  of  subjects  towards  their  rulers,  but  of  all  the  rela- 
tive social  duties  of  life ;  for  he  that  loveth  another  fulfilleth  the 
law,  vs.  7,  8. 

6.  The  nearness  of  eternity  should  operate  on  all  Christians 
as  a  motive  to  purity  and  devotedness  to  God.  The  night  is 
far  spent,  the  day  is  at  hand;  now  is  our  salvation  nearer  than 
when  we  believed,  vs.  18,  14. 

7.  All  Christian  duty  is  included  in  putting  on  the  Lord 
Jesus ;  in  being  like  him,  having  that  similarity  of  temper  and 
conduct  which  results  from  being  intimately  united  to  him  by 
the  Holy  Spirit,  ver.  14. 


CHAPTER    XIV. 

CONTENTS. 

As  in  chapter  xii.,  Paul  had  insisted  principally  upon  moral 
and  religious  duties,  and  in  chapter  xiii.,  on  those  of  a  political 
character,  he  here  treats  particularly  of  the  duties  of  church 
members  towards  each  other,  in  relation  to  matters  not  binding 
on  the  conscience.  There  are  two  points  specially  presented : 
the  first  is  the  manner  in  which  scrupulous  Christians,  who 
make  conscience  of  matters  of  indifference,  are  to  be  treated, 
vs.  1 — 12 ;  and  the  second,  the  manner  in  which  those  who  are 
strong  in  faith  should  use  their  Christian  liberty,  vs.  13 — 23. 

ROMANS  XIV.  1—23. 

ANALYSIS. 

Scrupulous  Christians,  whose  consciences  are  weak,  are  to 
be  kindly  received,  and  not  harshly  condemned,  ver.  1.  This 
direction  the  apostle  enforces  in  reference  to  those  who  were 


ROMANS  XIV.  1—23.  655 

scrupulous  as  to  eating  particular  kinds  of  food,  and  the  pro- 
priety of  neglecting  the  sacred  days  appointed  in  the  law  of 
Moses.  Such  persons  are  not  to  be  condemned:  1.  Because 
this  weakness  is  not  inconsistent  with  piety ;  notwithstanding 
their  doubts  on  these  points,  God  has  received  them,  ver.  3. 

2.  Because  one  Christian  has  no  right  to  judge  another,  (except 
where  Christ  has  expressly  authorized  it,  and  given  him  the 
rule  of  judgment ;)  to  his  own  master  he  stands  or  falls,  ver.  4. 

3.  Because  such  harsh  treatment  is  unnecessary ;  God  can  and 
will  preserve  such  persons,  notwithstanding  their  feebleness, 
ver.  4.  4.  Because  they  act  religiously,  or  out  of  regard  to 
God,  in  this  matter ;  and,  therefore,  live  according  to  the  great 
Christian  principle,  that  no  man  liveth  to  himself,  and  no  man 
dieth  to  himself,  but  whether  he  lives  or  dies,  belongs  to  God, 
vs.  6 — 9.  On  these  grounds  we  should  abstain  from  condemn- 
ing or  treating  contemptuously  our  weaker  brethren,  remember- 
ing that  we  are  all  to  stand  before  the  judgment-seat  of  Christ, 
vs.  10—13. 

As  to  the  use  of  Christian  liberty,  the  apostle  teaches  that 
it  is  not  to  be  given  up  or  denied ;  that  is,  we  are  not  to  make 
things  sinful  which  are  in  themselves  indifferent,  ver.  14.  But 
it  does  not  follow,  that  because  a  thing  is  not  wrong  in  itself, 
it  is  right  for  us  to  indulge  in  it.  Our  liberty  is  to  be  asserted ; 
but  it  is  to  be  exercised  in  such  a  way  as  not  to  injure  others. 
We  must  not  put  a  stumbling-block  in  our  brother's  way, 
ver.  12.  This  consideration  of  others,  in  the  use  of  our  liberty, 
is  enforced :  1.  From  the  great  law  of  love.  It  is  inconsistent 
with  Christian  charity,  for  our  own  gratification,  to  injure  a 
brother  for  whom  Christ  died,  ver.  15.  2.  From  a  regard  to 
the  honour  of  religion.  We  must  not  cause  that  which  is  good 
to  be  evil  spoken  of,  ver.  16.  3.  From  the  consideration  that 
religion  does  not  consist  in  such  things,  vs.  17,  18.  4.  Because 
we  are  bound  to  promote  the  peace  and  edification  of  the 
church,  ver.  19.  5.  Though  the  things  in  question  may  be  in 
themselves  indifierent,  it  is  morally  wrong  to  indulge  in  them 
to  the  injury  of  others,  vs.  20,  21.  6.  The  course  enjoined  by 
the  apostle  requires  no  concession  of  principle,  or  adoption  of 
error.  We  can  retain  our  full  belief  of  the  indiflerence  of  things 
which  God  has  not  pronounced  sinful ;  but  those  who  have  not 


656  ROMANS  XIV.  1. 

our  faith,  cannot   act   upon  it,  and  therefore   should  not  be 
encouraged  so  to  do,  vs.  22,  23. 

COMMENTARY. 

Verse  1.  Him  that  is  weak  in  faith  receive,  but  not  to  doubt- 
ful disputations.  This  verse  contains  the  general  direction 
that  weak  and  scrupulous  brethren  are  to  be  kindly  received, 
and  not  harshly  condemned.  Who  these  weak  brethren  were, 
and  what  was  the  nature  of  their  scruples,  is  matter  of  doubt. 
Some  say  they  were  Jewish  converts,  who  held  to  the  continued 
obligation  of  the  ceremonial  law.  But  to  this  it  is  objected, 
that  they  abstained  from  all  flesh  (ver.  2,)  and  refused  to  drink 
wine  (ver.  21 ;)  things  not  prohibited  in  the  law  of  Moses. 
Others  think  they  were  persons  who  scrupled  about  the  use  of 
such  flesh  only  as  had  been  offered  in  sacrifice  to  idols,  and 
of  the  wine  employed  in  libation  to  false  gods.  But  for  this 
limitation  there  is  no  ground  in  the  context.  Eichhorn,  Ein- 
leitung  III.  p.  222,  supposes  that  they  were  the  advocates,  of 
Gentile  birth,  of  the  ascetic  school  of  the  new  Pythagorean 
philosophy,  which  had  begun  to  prevail  among  the  heathen, 
and  probably  to  a  certain  extent  among  the  Jews.  But  it  is 
plain  that  they  held  to  the  continued  authority  of  the  Jewish 
law,  which  converts  from  among  the  heathen  would  not  be 
likely  to  do.  The  most  probable  opinion  is,  that  they  were  a 
scrupulous  class  of  Jewish  Christians ;  perhaps  of  the  school  of 
the  Essenes,  who  were  more  strict  and  abstemious  than  the 
Mosaic  ceremonial  required.  Asceticism,  as  a  form  of  self-right- 
eousness and  will-worship,  was  one  of  the  earliest,  most  exten- 
sive and  persistent  heresies  in  the  church.  But  there  is  nothing 
inconsistent  with  the  assumption  that  the  weak  brethren  here 
spoken  of  were  scrupulous  Jewish  Christians.  Josephus  says, 
that  some  of  the  Jews  at  Rome  lived  on  fruits  exclusively,  from 
fear  of  eating  something  unclean.  Weak  in  faith,  i.  e.,  weak  as 
to  faith  [mazec.)  Faith  here  means,  persuasion  of  the  truth ;  a 
man  may  have  a  strong  persuasion  as  to  certain  truths,  and  a 
very  weak  one  as  to  others.  Some  of  the  early  Christians  were, 
no  doubt,  fully  convinced  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah,  and  yet 
felt  great  doubts  whether  the  distinction  between  clean  and 
unclean  meats  was  entirely  done  away.     This  was  certainly  a 


ROMANS  XIV.  2.  657 

great  defect  of  Christian  character,  and  arose  from  the  want 
of  an  intelligent  and  firm  conviction  of  the  gratuitous  nature 
of  justification,  and  of  the  spirituality  of  the  gospel.  Since, 
however,  this  weakness  was  not  inconsistent  with  sincere  devo- 
tion to  Christ,  such  persons  were  to  be  received.  The  word 
{npoaXafi^dvofxat)  rendered  receive^  has  the  general  signification, 
to  take  to  one-self;  and  this  is  its  meaning  here :  '  Him  that  is 
weak  in  faith,  take  to  yourselves  as  a  Christian  brother,  treat 
him  kindly;'  see  Acts  xxviii.  2,  Rom.  xv.  7,  Philemon  vs. 
15,  17. 

There  is  much  more  doubt  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  words  {htj 
erV  diaxpc(T£i<;  dcakoyiaficov)  translated  not  to  doubtful  disputations. 
The  former  of  the  two  important  words  of  this  clause  means,  the 
faculty  of  discrimination,  1  Cor.  xiii.  10 ;  the  act  of  discerning, 
Heb.  v.  14,  and  then,  dijudication,  judgment.  It  is  said  also  to 
signify  doubt  or  inward  conjiict;  see  the  use  of  the  verb  in  chap, 
iv.  20.  It  is  taken  in  this  sense  in  our  version,  not  to  the  doubt- 
fulness of  disputes,  not  for  the  purpose  of  doubtful  disputation. 
That  is,  not  so  as  to  give  rise  to  disputes  on  doubtful  matters. 
Luther  (und  verwirret  die  Gewissen  nicht,)  and  many  others 
take  dcaxpf-aecz  in  the  sense  of  doubt,  and  refer  the  dcaXojca [loi 
to  the  weak  brethren :  '  Not  so  as  to  awaken  doubts  of  thought, 
i.  e.,  scruples.'  Although  the  verb  diaxpiveo),  in  the  passive, 
often  means  to  hesitate  or  doubt,  the  noun  dcaxpiati;  is  not  used 
in  that  sense,  either  in  the  classics  or  in  the  New  Testament. 
It  is  therefore  better  to  take  the  word  in  its  ordinary  sense, 
which  gives  a  meaning  to  the  passage  suited  to  the  context,  not 
to  the  judging  of  thoughts;  i.  e.,  not  presuming  to  sit  in  judg- 
ment on  the  opinions  of  your  brethren.  Grrotius:  "Non 
sumentes  vobis  dijudicandas  ipsorum  cogitationes."  This  is 
the  injunction  which  is  enforced  in  the  following  verses. 

Verse  2.  For  one  believeth  he  may  eat  all  things:  another, 
who  is  weak,  eateth  herbs — oc  pisv  maTeuei  faytlv  ndvta  does 
not  mean,  one  believeth  he  may  eat  all  things;  much  less,  he 
that  believeth  eats  all  things,  but,  one  has  confidence  to  eat  all 
things.  Instead  of  8c  peu  being  followed  by  8c  <5i,  one  eats 
all  things,  another  eats  herbs,  Paul  says,  6  de  da^evajv,  he  who 
is  weak  eateth  herbs.  This  is  an  illustration  of  the  weakness 
of  faith  to  which  the  apostle  refers  in  ver.  1.  It  was  a  scrupu- 
42 


658  ROMANS  XIV.  3. 

lousness  about  the  use  of  things  considered  as  unclean,  and  with 
regard  to  sacred  days,  ver.  5.  There  were  two  sources  whence 
the  early  Christian  church  was  disturbed  by  the  question  about 
meats.  The  first,  and  by  far  the  most  important,  was  the 
natural  prejudices  of  the  Jewish  converts.  It  is  not  a  matter 
of  surprise  that,  educated  as  they  had  been  in  a  strict  regard 
for  the  Mosaic  law,  they  found  it  difficult  to  enter  at  once  into 
the  full  liberty  of  the  gospel,  and  disencumber  their  consciences 
of  all  their  early  opinions.  Even  the  apostles  were  slow  in 
shaking  them  off;  and  the  church  in  Jerusalem  seems  to  have 
long  continued  in  the  observance  of  a  great  part  of  the  ceremo- 
nial law.  These  scruples  were  not  confined  to  the  use  of  meats 
pronounced  unclean  in  the  Old  Testament,  but,  as  appears  from 
the  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians,  extended  to  partaking  of  any- 
thing which  had  been  offered  to  an  idol ;  and,  in  these  latter 
scruples,  some  even  of  the  Gentile  converts  may  have  joined. 
The  second  source  of  trouble  on  this  subject  was  less  prevalent 
and  less  excusable.  It  was  the  influence  of  the  mystic  ascetic 
philosophy  of  the  East,  which  had  developed  itself  among  the 
Jews,  in  the  peculiar  opinions  of  the  Essenes,  and  which,  among 
the  Christian  churches,  particularly  those  of  Asia  Minor,  pro- 
duced the  evils  which  Paul  describes  in  his  Epistles  to  the 
Colossians  (chap.  ii.  10 — 23,)  and  to  Timothy  (1  Tim.  iv.  1 — 8,) 
and  which  subsequently  gave  rise  to  all  the  errors  of  Gnosti- 
cism. There  is  no  satisfactory  evidence  that  the  persona  to 
whom  Paul  refers  in  this  passage  were  under  the  influence  of 
this  philosophy.  The  fact  that  they  abstained  from  all  meat, 
as  seems  to  be  intimated  in  this  verse,  may  have  arisen  from 
the  constant  apprehension  of  eating  meat  which,  after  having 
been  presented  in  sacrifice,  was  sold  in  the  market-place,  or 
which  had  in  some  other  way  been  rendered  unclean.  Every 
thing  in  the  context  is  consistent  with  the  supposition  that 
Jewish  scruples  were  the  source  of  the  difficulty ;  and  as  these 
were  by  far  the  most  common  cause,  no  other  need  be  here 
assumed. 

Verse  3.  Let  not  him  that  eateth  despise  him  that  eateth  not; 
and  let  not  him  which  eateth  not  judge  him  that  eateth :  for  Grod 
hath  received  him.  There  is  mutual  forbearance  to  be  exercised 
in  relation  to  this  subject.     The  strong  are  not  to  despise  the 


ROMANS  XIV.  4.  659 

weak  as  superstitious  and  imbecile ;  nor  the  weak  to  condemn 
those  who  disregard  their  scruples.  Points  of  indifference  are 
not  to  be  allowed  to  disturb  the  harmony  of  Christian  fellow- 
ship. For  Grod  hath  received  him;  i.  e.,  God  has  recognised 
him  as  a  Christian,  and  received  him  into  his  kingdom.  This 
reason  is  not  designed  to  enforce  merely  the  latter  of  the  two 
duties  here  enjoined,  but  is  applied  to  both.  As  God  does  not 
make  eating  or  not  eating  certain  kinds  of  food  a  condition  of 
acceptance,  Clyistians  ought  not  to  allow  it  to  interfere  with 
their  communion  as  brethren.  The  Jewish  converts  were  per- 
haps quite  as  much  disposed  to  condemn  the  Gentile  Christians, 
as  the  latter  were  to  despise  the  Christian  Jews ;  Paul  there- 
fore frames  his  admonition  so  as  to  reach  both  classes.  It 
appears,  however,  from  the  first  verse,  and  from  the  whole  con- 
text, that  the  Gentiles  were  principally  intended. 

Verse  4.  Who  art  thou  that  judgest  another  man's  servant? 
to  his  own  master  he  standeth  or  falleth.  If  God  has  not  made 
the  point  in  question  a  term  of  communion,  we  have  no  right  to 
make  it  a  ground  of  condemnation.  We  have  no  right  to  exer- 
cise the  office  of  judge  over  the  servant  of  another.  This  is  the 
second  reason  for  mutual  forbearance  with  regard  to  such  mat- 
ters as  divided  the  .Jewish  and  Gentile  converts.  It  cannot  fail 
to  be  remarked  how  differently  the  apostle  speaks  of  the  same 
things  under  different  circumstances.  He  who  circumcised 
Timothy,  who  conformed  in  many  things  to  the  law  of  Moses, 
and  to  the  Jews  became  a  Jew,  and  who  here  exhorts  Christians 
to  regard  their  external  observances  as  matters  of  indifference, 
resisted  to  the  uttermost,  as  soon  as  these  things  were  urged  as 
matters  of  importance,  or  were  insisted  upon  as  necessary  to 
acceptance  with  God.  He  would  not  allow  Titus  to  be  circum- 
cised, nor  give  place  even  for  an  hour  to  false  brethren,  who 
had  come  in  privily  to  act  as  spies.  Gal.  ii,  3,  5.  He  warned 
the  Galatians,  that  if  they  were  circumcised,  Christ  would  profit 
them  nothing ;  that  they  renounced  the  whole  method  of  gra- 
tuitous justification,  and  forfeited  its  blessings,  if  they  sought 
acceptance  on  any  such  terms.  How  liberal  and  how  faithful  I 
was  the  apostle !  He  would  concede  every  thing,  and  become j 
all  things  to  all  men,  where  principle  was  not  at  stake;  bull 
when  it  was,  he  would  concede  nothing  for  a  moment.     What 


660  ROMANS  XIV.  5. 

might  be  safely  granted,  if  asked  and  given  as  a  matter  of 
indifference,  became  a  fatal  apostacy  when  demanded  as  a 
matter  of  necessity  or  a  condition  of  salvation. 

To  his  own  master  he  standeth  or  falleth,  i.  e.,  it  belongs  tc 
his  own  master  to  decide  his  case,  to  acquit  or  to  condemn. 
These  terms  are  often  used  in  this  judicial  sense,  Ps.  i.  5, 
Ixxvi.  7,  Luke  xxi.  36,  Rev.  vi.  17.  Yea,  he  shall  be  holden 
up:  for  G-od  is  able  to  make  him  stand;  i.  e.,  he  shall  stand,  or 
be  accepted,  for  God  has  the  right  and  the  wiH  to  make  him 
stand,  that  is,  to  acquit  and  save  him.  This  clause  seems 
designed  to  urge  a  further  reason  for  forbearance  and  kindness 
towards  those  who  diff'er  from  us  on  matters  of  indiff'erence. 
However  weak  a  man's  faith  may  be,  if  he  is  a  Christian,  he 
should  be  recognised  and  treated  as  such ;  for  his  weakness  is 
not  inconsistent  with  his  acceptance  with  God,  and  therefore  is 
no  ground  or  necessity  for  our  proceeding  against  him  with 
severity.  The  objects  of  discipline  are  the  reformation  of 
offenders  and  the  purification  of  the  church;  but  neither  of 
these  objects  requires  the  condemnation  of  those  brethren 
whom  God  has  received.  "God  is  able  to  make  him  stand;" 
he  has  not  only  the  power,  but  the  disposition  and  determina- 
tion. Compare  chap.  xi.  23,  "For  God  is  able  to  graft  them 
in  again."  The  interpretation  given  above,  according  to  which 
standing  and  falling  are  understood  judicially,  is  the  one  com- 
monly adopted.  It  is  however  objected,  that  justifying,  causing 
to  stand  in  judgment,  is  not  an  act  of  power,  but  of  grace.  On 
this  ground,  standing  and  falling  are  taken  to  refer  to  continu- 
ing or  falling  away  from  the  Christian  life.  God  is  able,  not- 
withstanding their  weakness,  to  cause  his  feeble  children  to 
persevere.  But  this  is  against  the  context.  The  thing  con- 
demned is  unrighteous  judgments.  The  brethren  are  not 
responsible  to  each  other,  or  to  the  church,  for  their  scruples. 
God  is  the  Lord  of  the  conscience.  To  him  they  must  answer. 
Before  him  they  stand  or  fall. 

Verse  5.  One  man  esteemeth  one  day  above  another;  another 
esteemeth  every  day  alike.  Kpivet  ^[xepav  nap  ■^[lepav  (eli^ai,) 
judges  one  day  (to  be)  before  another,  (i.  e.,  better ;)  xpivei  naaav 
■^fxepav  {stvac  ^fxepav)  to  be  a  day,  and  nothing  more.  He  has 
the  same  judgment  (or  estimation)  of  every  day.     As  the  law 


ROMANS  XIV.  6.  661 

of  Mose8  not  only  made  a  distinction  between  meats  as  clean 
and  unclean,  but  also  prescribed  the  observance  of  certain  days 
as  religious  festivals,*  the  Jewish  converts  were  as  scrupulous 
with  regard  to  this  latter  point  as  the  former.  Some  Chris- 
tians, therefore,  thought  it  incumbent  on  them  to  observe  these 
days ;  others  were  of  a  contrary  opinion.  Both  were  to  be  tole- 
rated. The  veneration  of  these  days  was  a  weakness ;  but  still 
it  was  not  a  vital  matter,  and  therefore  should  not  be  allowed 
to  disturb  the  harmony  of  Christian  intercourse,  or  the  peace 
of  the  church.  It  is  obvious  from  the  context,  and  from  such 
parallel  passages  as  Gal.  iv.  10,  "Ye  observe  days,  and  months, 
and  times,  and  years,"  and  Col.  ii.  16,  "Let  no  man  judge  you 
in  meat,  or  in  drink,  or  in  respect  of  a  holy  day,  or  of  the  new 
moon,  or  of  Sabbath  days,"  that  Paul  has  reference  to  the 
Jewish  festivals,  and  therefore  his  language  cannot  properly  be 
applied  to 'the  Christian  Sabbath.  The  sentiment  of  the  pas- 
sage is  this,  '  One  man  observes  the  Jewish  festivals,  another 
man  does  not.'  Such  we  know  was  the  fact  in  the  apostolic 
church,  even  among  those  who  agreed  in  the  observance  of  the 
first  day  of  the  week.  » 

Let  every  man  he  fully  persuaded  in  his  own  mind.  The 
principle  which  the  apostle  enforces  in  reference  to  this  case,  is 
the  same  as  that  which  he  enjoined  in  relation  to  the  other, 
viz.,  that  one  man  should  not  be  forced  to  act  according  toi 
another  man's  conscience,  but  every  one  should  be  satisfied' 
in  his  own  mind,  and  be  careful  not  to  do  what  he  thought 
wrong. 

Verse  6.  He  that  regardeth  the  day,  regardeth  it  unto  the 
Lord;  and  he  that  regardeth  not  the  day,  to  the  Lord  he  doth 
not  regard  it.  He  that  eateth,  eateth  to  the  Lord,  &c.  That  is, 
both  parties  are  actuated  by  religious  motives  in  what  they  do ; 
they  regulate  their  conduct  by  a  regard  to  the  will  of  God,  and 
therefore,  although  some,  from  weakness  or  ignorance,  may  err 
as  to  the  rule  of  duty,  they  are  not  to  be  despised  or  cast  out 
as  evil.  The  strong  should  not  contemn  the  scrupulous,  nor  the 
scrupulous  be  censorious  towards  the  strong.  This  is  a  fourth 
argument  in  favour  of  the  mutual  forbearance  enjoined  in  the 
first  verse.  He  that  eateth,  eateth  to  the  Lord;  for  he  giveth 
God  thanks,  &c.     That  is,  he  who  disregards  the  Mosaic  dis- 


ROMANS  XIV.  7,  8. 

tinction  between  clean  and  unclean  meats,  and  uses  indiscrimi- 
nately the  common  articles  of  food,  acts  religiously  in  so  doing, 
as  is  evident  from  his  giving  God  thanks.  He  could  not  delibe- 
rately thank  God  for  what  he  supposed  God  had  forbidden  him 
to  use.  In  like  manner,  he  that  abstains  from  certain  meats, 
does  it  religiously,  for  he  also  giveth  thanks  to  God;  which 
implies  that  he  regards  himself  as  acting  agreeably  to  the  divine 
will.  The  Lord  is  he  who  died  and  rose  again,  that  he  might  be 
Lord  both  of  the  living  and  the  dead.  It  is  to  him  the  believer 
is  responsible,  as  to  the  Lord  of  his  inner  life. 

Verse  7.  For  none  of  us  liveih  to  himself^  and  no  man  dieth 
to  himself;  kauT<p,  in  dependence  on  himself  This  verse  is  an 
amplification  and  confirmation  of  the  preceding.  The  principle 
on  which  both  the  classes  of  persons  just  referred  to  acted,  is  a 
true  Christian  principle.  No  Christian  considers  himself  as  his 
own  master,  or  at  liberty  to  regulate  his  conduct  according  to 
his  own  will,  or  for  his  own  ends ;  he  is  the  servant  of  Christ, 
and  therefore  endeavours  to  live  according  to  his  will  and  for 
his  glory.  They,  therefore,  who  act  on  this  principle,  are  to  be 
regarded  and  treated  as  true  Christians,  although  they  may 
differ  as  to  what  the  will  of  God,  in  particular  cases,  requires. 
No  man  dieth  to  himself,  i.  e.,  death  as  well  as  life  must  be  left 
in  the  hands  of  God,  to  be  directed  by  his  will  and  for  his  glory. 
The  sentiment  is,  'We  are  entirely  his,  having  no  authority 
over  our  life  or  death.' 

Verse  8.  For  whether  we  live,  we  live  unto  the  Lord;  or 
whether  we  die,  we  die  unto  the  Lord:  whether  we  live  therefore, 
or  die,  we  are  the  Lord's.  The  same  sentiment  as  in  the  pre- 
ceding verse,  rather  more  fully  and  explicitly  stated.  In  ver.  7, 
Paul  had  stated,  negatively,  that  the  Christian  does  not  live 
according  to  his  own  will,  or  for  his  own  pleasure;  he  here 
states,  affirmatively,  that  he  does  live  according  to  the  will  of 
Christ,  and  for  his  glory.  This  being  the  case,  he  is  a  true 
Christian;  he  belongs  to  Christ,  and  should  be  so  recognised 
and  treated.  It  is  very  obvious,  especially  from  the  following 
verse,  which  speaks  of  death  and  resurrection,  that  Christ  is 
intended  by  the  word  Lord,  in  this  verse.  It  is  for  Christ,  and 
in  subjection  to  his  will,  that  every  Christian  endeavours  to 
regulate  his  heart,  his  conscience,  and  his  life.     This  is  the 


ROMANS  XIV.  9.  663 

profoundest  homage  the  creature  can  render  to  his  Creator; 
and  as  it  is  the  service  which  the  Scriptures  require  us  to 
render  to  the  Redeemer,  it  of  necessity  supposes  that  Christ  is 
God.  This  is  rendered  still  plainer  by  the  interchange,  through- 
out the  passage  (vs.  6 — 9,)  of  the  terms  Lord  and  God :  '  He 
that  eateth,  eateth  to  the  Lord,  for  he  giveth  God  thanks.  We 
live  unto  the  Lord ;  we  are  the  Lord's.  For  to  this  end  Christ 
died  and  rose,  that  he  might  be  the  Lord,'  &c.  It  is  clear  that, 
to  the  apostle's  mind,  the  idea  that  Christ  is  God  was  perfectly 
familiar.  Wliether  we  live  therefore,  or  die,  we  are  the  Lord's. 
We  are  not  our  own,  but  Christ's,  1  Cor.  vi.  19.  This  right 
of  possession,  and  the  consequent  duty  of  devotion  and  obedi- 
ence, are  not  founded  on  creation,  but  on  redemption.  We  are 
Christ's,  because  he  has  bought  us  with  a  price. 

Verse  9.  For  to  this  end  Christ  both  died,  and  rose,  and 
revived,^  that  he  might  be  the  Lord  both  of  the  dead  and  living. 
The  dominion  which  Christ,  as  Mediator  or  Redeemer,  exercises 
over  his  people,  and  which  they  gladly  recognise,  is  therefore 
referred  to  his  death  and  resurrection.  By  his  death  he  pur- 
chased them  for  his  own,  and  by  his  resurrection  he  attained  to 
that  exalted  station  which  he  now  occupies  as  Lord  over  all, 
and  received  those  gifts  which  enable  him  to  exercise  as  Medi- 
ator this  universal  dominion.  The  exaltation  and  dominion  of 
Christ  are  frequently  represented  in  the  Scriptures  as  the 
reward  of  his  sufferings:  "Wherefore  God  also  hath  highly 
exalted  him,  and  given  him  a  name  which  is  above  every  name ; 
that  at  the  name  of  Jesus  every  knee  should  bow,"  &c.  Phil, 
ii.  8,  9.  This  authority  of  Christ  over  his  people  is  not  con- 
fined to  this  world,  but  extends  beyond  the  grave.  He  is  Lord 
both  of  the  dead  and  the  living. 

*  The  common  text  reads  ««/  (i7rs3-av«  xai  av'itm  k-mI  uyi^ua-n;  most  corrected 
editions  read  ncu  u.7ri^u.vi  icui  i^r.a-ti;  and  some  omit  jta<  before  aTri^nvt  The 
words  «*i  ucso-T))  are  omitted  in  the  MSS.  A.  C,  in  the  Coptic,  Ethiopic,  Syriac, 
and  Armenian  versions,  and  by  many  of  the  Fathers.  They  are  rejected  by 
Erasmus,  Bengel,  Schmidt.  Knapp,  Lachmann,  and  others.  The  words  khi 
uvi^>ia-fv  are  omitted  by  some  few  MSS.  and  Fathers;  xcti  i^xa-iv  are  read  in  MSS. 
A.  C.  and  in  forty-four  others.  They  are  adopted  in  the  Complutensian  edi- 
tion, and  in  those  of  Mill,  Bengel,  Wetstein,  Griesbach,  Knapp,  Lachmann,  &c. 
Thp'^e  diversities  do  not  materially  affect  the  sense.  The  words  avia-Tn  and 
I  vi^»ny  have  very  much  the  appearance  of  explanatory  glosses. 


664  ROMANS  XIV.  10,  11. 

Verse  10.  But  why  dost  thou  judge  thy  brother?  or  why 
dost  thou  set  at  naught  thy  brother  ?  for  we  shall  all  stand 
before  the  judgment-seat  of  Christ."^  .In  this  and  the  following 
verses,  to  the  13th,  Paul  applies  his  previous  reasoning  to  the 
case  in  hand.  If  a  man  is  our  brother,  if  God  has  received  him, 
if  he  acts  from  a  sincere  desire  to  do  the  divine  will,  he  should 
not  be  condemned,  though  he  may  think  certain  things  right 
which  we  think  wrong ;  nor  should  he  be  despised  if  he  tram- 
mels his  conscience  with  unnecessary  scruples.  The  former  of 
these  clauses  relates  to  scrupulous  Jewish  Christians ;  the  latter 
to  the  Gentile  converts.  The  last  member  of  the  verse  applies 
to  both  classes.  As  we  are  all  to  stand  before  the  judgment- 
seat  of  Christ,  as  he  is  our  sole  and  final  judge,  we  should  not 
usurp  his  prerogative,  or  presume  to  condemn  those  whom  he 
has  received. 

Verse  11.  For  it  is  written,  As  I  live,  saith  the  Lord,  every 
knee  shall  bow  to  me,  and  every  tongue  shall  confess.  This 
quotation  is  from  Isa.  xlv.  23,  "  I  have  sworn  by  myself,  the 
word  is  gone  out  of  my  mouth  in  righteousness,  and  shall  not 
return,  that  unto  me  every  knee  shall  bow,  and  every  tongue 
shall  swear."  The  apostle,  it  will  be  perceived,  does  not  adhere 
to  the  words  of  the  passage  which  he  quotes,  but  contents  him- 
self with  giving  the  sense.  '  As  I  live,  being  the  form  of  an 
oath,  ia  a  correct  exhibition  of  the  meaning  of  the  phrase,  I 
have  sworn  by  myself.  And  since,  to  swear  by  any  being,  is  to 
recognise  his  power  and  authority  over  us,  the  expressions, 
every  tongue  shall  swear,  and  every  tongue  shall  confess,  are  of 
similar  import.  Both  indeed  are  parallel  to  the  clause,  every 
knee  shall  bow,  and  are  but  different  forms  of  expressing  the 
general  idea  that  every  one  shall  submit  to  God,  i.  e.,  recognise 
his  authority  as  God,  the  supreme  ruler  and  judge.  The  apostle 
evidently  considers  the  recognition  of  the  authority  of  Christ  as 
being  tantamount  to  submission  to  God,  and  he  applies  without 
hesitation  the  declarations  of  the  Old  Testament  in  relation  to 


*  Instead  of  ;^g«o-Tou,  at  the  close  of  this  verse,  the  MSS.  A.  D.  E.  F.  G.  read 
S-ioti.  which  is  adopted  by  Mill,  Lachmann,  and  Tischendorf.  The  common 
reading  is  supported  by  the  great  majority  of  the  MSS.,  most  of  the  ancient 
versions,  and  almost  all  the  Fathers.  It  is  therefore  retained  by  most  critical 
editors. 


ROMANS  XIV.  12,  13.  665 

the  universal  dominion  of  Jehovah,  in  proof  of  the  Redeemer's 
sovereignty.  In  Paul's  estimation,  therefore,  Jesus  Christ  was 
God.  This  is  so  obvious,  that  commentators  of  all  classes 
recognise  the  force  of  the  argument  hence  deduced  for  the 
divinity  of  Christ.  Luther  says :  "  So  muss  Christus  rechter 
Gott  sein,  weil  solches  vor  seinem  Richterstuhl  geschehen." 
Calvin :  "  Est  etiam  insignis  locus  ad  stabiliendam  fidem  mos- 
tram  de  seterna  Christi  divinitate."  Bengel:  "Christus  est 
Deus,  nam  dicitur  Dominus  et  Deus.  Ipse  est,  cui  vivimus  et 
morimur.  Ipse  jurat  per  se  ipsum."  Even  Koppe  says,  "  Quae 
Jes.  xlv.  23,  de  Jehova  dicuntur,  eadem  ad  Christum  transferri 
ab  apostolo,  non  est  mirandum,  cum  hunc  illi  artissime  conjunc- 
tum  cogitandum  esse,  perpetua  sit  tum  Judaeorum,  quoties- 
cunque  de  Messia  loquuntur,  tum  imprimis  Pauli  et  Joanis 
sententia."  This  verse  may  be  considered  as  intended  to  con- 
firm the  truth  of  the  declaration  at  the  close  of  the  one  preced- 
ing :  '  We  shall  all  stand  before  the  judgment-seat  of  Christ ; 
for  it  is  written,  To  me  every  knee  shall  bow.'  And  this  seems 
the  natural  relation  of  the  passage.  Calvin  understands  this 
verse,  however,  as  designed  to  enforce  humble  submission  to  the 
judgment  of  Christ:  'We  should  not  judge  others,  since  we  are 
to  be  judged  by  Christ ;  and  to  his  judgment  we  must  humbly 
bow  the  knee.'  This  is  indeed  clearly  implied;  but  it  is  rather 
an  accessory  idea,  than  the  special  design  of  the  passage. 

Verse  12.  So  then  every  one  of  us  shall  give  account  of  him- 
self to  God.  'As,  therefore,  God  is  the  supreme  judge,  and  we 
are  to  render  our  account  to  him,  we  should  await  his  decision, 
and  not  presume  to  act  the  part  of  judge  over  our  brethren.' 

Verse  13.  Let  us  not  therefore  judge  one  another  any  more; 
but  judge  this  rather^  that  no  man  put  a  stumbling -block  or  an 
occasion  to  fall  in  his  brother  s  way.  After  drawing  the  con- 
clusion from  the  preceding  discussion,  that  we  should  leave  the 
office  of  judging  in  the  hands  of  God,  the  apostle  introduces 
the  second  leading  topic  of  the  chapter,  viz.,  the  manner  in 
which  Christian  liberty  is  to  be  exercised.  He  teaches  that 
it  is  not  enough  that  we  are  persuaded  a  certain  course  is,  in 
itself  considered,  right,  in  order  to  authorize  us  to  pursue  it. 
We  must  be  careful  that  we  do  not  injure  others  in  the  use  of 
our  liberty.     The  word  [xpcuoj)  rendered  judge^  means  also,  to 


ROMANS  XIV.  14,  15. 

determine^  to  make  up  ones  mind.  Paul  uses  it  first  in  the 
one  sense,  and  then  in  the  other :  '  Do  not  judge  one  another, 
but  determine  to  avoid  giving  oflfenee.'  The  words  {Ttpoaxofxfjia 
and  axdvoaXov)  rendered  a  stumhling-hlock  and  an  occasion  to 
fall,  do  not  differ  in  their  meaning ;  the  latter  is  simply  exe- 
getical  of  the  former. 

Verse  14.  /  know,  and  am  persuaded  hy  the  Lord  Jesus, 
that  there  is  nothing  unclean  of  itself;  hut  to  him  that  esteemeth 
anything  to  be  unclean,  to  him  it  is  unclean.  *  The  distinction 
between  clean  and  unclean  meats  is  no  longer  valid.  So  far  the 
Gentile  converts  are  right.  But  they  should  remember  that 
those  who  consider  the  law  of  the  Old  Testament  on  this  subject 
as  still  binding,  cannot,  with  a  good  conscience,  disregard  it. 
The  strong  should  not,  therefore,  do  anything  which  would  be 
likely  to  lead  such  persons  to  violate  their  own  sense  of  duty.' 
I  know  and  am  persuaded  by  (in)  the  Lord  Jesus,  i.  e.,  this 
knowledge  and  persuasion  I  owe  to  the  Lord  Jesus ;  it  is  not  an 
opinion  founded  on  my  own  reasonings,  but  a  knowledge  derived 
from  divine  revelation.  That  there  is  nothing  unclean  of  itself. 
The  word  [xocuoc;)  rendered  unclean,  has  this  sense  only  in  Hel- 
lenistic Greek.  It  means  common,  and  as  opposed  to  (5poc) 
holy,  (i.  e.,  separated  for  some  special  or  sacred  use,)  it  signifies 
impure;  see  Acts  x.  14,  28,  Mark  vii.  2,  &c.  But  to  him  that 
esteemeth  anything  to  be  unclean,  to  him  it  is  unclean;  i.  e., 
though  not  unclean  in  itself,  it  ought  not  to  be  used  by  those 
who  regard  its  use  as  unlawful.  But,  ec  fiij,  which  seems  here 
to  be  used  in  the  sense  of  dXXd;  compare  Matt.  xii.  4,  Gal.  i.  19. 
The  ordinary  sense  of  except  may,  however,  be  retained,  by 
restricting  the  reference  to  a  part  of  the  preceding  clause: 
'Nothing  is  unclean,  except  to  him  who  esteems  it  to  be 
unclean.'  The  simple  principle  here  taught  is,  that  it  is  wrong 
for  any  man  to  violate  his  own  sense  of  duty.  This  being  the 
case,  those  Jewish  converts  who  believed  the  distinction  between 
clean  and  unclean  meats  to  be  still  in  force,  would  commit  sin 
in  disregarding  it ;  and,  therefore,  should  not  be  induced  to  act 
contrary  to  their  consciences. 

Verse  15.  But  if  thy  brother  be  grieved  with  thy  meat,  now 
walkest  thou  not  charitably.  Destroy  not  him  with  thy  meat,  for 
whom  Christ  died.     Instead  of  ds,  but,  which  is  found  in  the 


ROMANS  XIV.  16.  667 

common  text,  Griesbach,  Lachmann,  and  Tischendorf,  on  the 
authority  of  the  majority  of  the  Uncial  MSS.,  read  yap,  for. 
As  this  verse,  however,  does  not  assign  a  reason  for  the  princi- 
ple asserted  in  ver.  14,  but  does  introduce  a  limitation  to  the 
practical  application  of  that  principle,  the  majority  of  com- 
mentators and  editors  retain  the  common  text.  The  sense 
obviously  is,  '  Though  the  thing  is  right  in  itself,  yet  if  indul- 
gence in  it  be  injurious  to  our  Christian  brethren,  that  indul- 
gence is  a  violation  of  the  law  of  love.'  This  is  the  first 
consideration  which  the  apostle  urges,  to  enforce  the  exhorta- 
tion not  to  put  a  stumbling-block  in  our  brother's  way.  The 
word  (^Xunelzac,)  is  grieved,  may  mean  is  injured.  Either  sense 
suits  the  context :  '  If  thy  brother,  emboldened  by  thy  example, 
is  led  to  do  what  he  thinks  wrong,  and  is  thus  rendered  misera- 
ble,' t&c.  Or,  'If  thy  brother,  by  thy  example,  is  injured  (by 
being  led  into  sin,)  thou  walkest  uncharitably.'  This  use  of  the 
word,  however,  is  foreign  to  the  New  Testament.  It  is  a  moral 
grievance  of  which  the  apostle  speaks,  a  wounding  of  the  con- 
science. Destroy  not  {jutj  dTToUue.)  These  words  have  been 
variously  explained.  The  meaning  may  be,  '  Avoid  every  thing 
which  has  a  tendency  to  lead  him  to  destruction.'  So  De  Brais, 
Bengel,  Tholuck,  Stuart,  and  many  others.  Or,  '  Do  not  injure 
him,  or  render  him  miserable.'  So  Eisner,  Koppe,  Flatt,  Wahl, 
and  others.  There  is  no  material  difference  between  these  two 
interpretations.  The  former  is  more  consistent  with  the  com- 
mon meaning  of  the  origina.1  word,  from  which  there  is  no 
necessity  to  depart.  Believers  (the  elect)  are  constantly  spoken 
of  as  in  danger  of  perdition.  They  are  saved  only,  if  they  con- 
tinue steadfast  unto  the  end.  If  they  apostatize,  they  perish. 
If  the  Scriptures  tell  the  people  of  God  what  is  the  tendency 
of  their  sins,  as  to  themselves,  they  may  tell  them  what  is  the 
tendency  of  such  sins  as  to  others.  Saints  are  preserved,  not 
in  despite  of  apostacy,  but  from  apostacy.  'If  thy  brother  be 
aggrieved,  thou  doest  wrong;  do  not  grieve  or  injure  him.' 
For  whom  Christ  died.  This  consideration  has  peculiar  force. 
'  If  Christ  so  loved  him  as  to  die  for  him,  how  base  in  you  not 
to  submit  to  the  smallest  self-denial  for  his  welfare.' 

Verse  16.  Let  not  your  good  he  evil  spoken  of;  that  is,  '  Do 
not  so  use  your  liberty,  which  is  good  and  valuable,  as  to  make 


668  ROMANS  XIV.  17. 

it  the  occasion  of  evil,  and  so  liable  to  censure.'  Thus  Calvin 
and  most  other  commentators.  This  supposes  that  the  exhorta- 
tion here  given  is  addressed  to  the  strong  in  faith.  The  6//a»v, 
however,  may  include  both  classes,  and  the  exhortation  extend 
to  the  weak  as  well  as  to  the  good.  Your  good,  that  special 
good  which  belongs  to  you  as  Christians,  viz.,  the  gospel.  This 
view  is  taken  by  Melancthon,  and  most  of  the  later  commenta- 
tors. "Lsedunt  utrique  evangelium  cum  rixantur  de  rebus  non 
necessariis.  Ita  fit  ut  imperiti  abhorreant  ab  evangelio  cum 
videtur  parere  discordias." 

Verse  17.  For  the  kingdom  of  G-od  is  not  meat  and  drink; 
hut  righteousness,  and  peace,  and  joy  in  the  Holy  Grhost.  This 
is  a  new  reason  for  forbearance.  No  principle  of  duty  is  sacri- 
ficed; nothing  essential  to  religion  is  disregarded,  for  religion 
does  not  consist  in  external  observances,  but  in  the  inward 
graces  of  the  Spirit.  It  has  already  been  remarked  (ver.  4,) 
that  with  all  his  desire  of  peace,  no  one  was  more  firm  and 
unyielding,  when  any  dereliction  of  Christian  principle  was 
required  of  him,  than  the  apostle.  But  the  case  under  con- 
sideration is  very  different.  There  is  no  sin  in  abstaining  from 
certain  meats,  and  therefore,  if  the  good  of  others  require  this 
abstinence,  we  are  bound  to  exercise  it.  The  phrase,  kingdom 
of  Grod,  almost  uniformly  signifies  the  kingdom  of  the  Messiah^ 
under  some  one  of  its  aspects,  as  consisting  of  all  professing 
Christians,  of  all  his  own  people,  of  glorified  believers,  or  as 
existing  in  the  heart.  It  is  the  spiritual  theocracy.  The  theoc- 
racy of  the  Old  Testament  was  ceremonial  and  ritual ;  that  of 
the  New  is  inward  and  spiritual.  Christianity,  as  we  should 
say,  does  not  consist  in  things  external.  Meat  and  dritik, 
or  rather,  eating  (j^paiat^)  and  drinking  (noaci;.)  The  distinction 
between  these  words  and  ^pai/jia  and  Ko/ia,  is  constantly 
observed  in  Paul's  epistles.  Righteousness,  peace,  and  joy^  in 
the  Holy  Grhost.  These  words  are  to  be  taken  in  their  scrip- 
tural sense.  Paul  does  not  mean  to  say,  that  Christianity  con- 
sists in  morality;  that  the  man  who  is  just,  peaceful,  and 
cheerful,  is  a  true  Christian.  This  would  be  to  contradict  the 
whole  argument  of  this  epistle.  The  righteousness,  peace,  and 
joy  intended,  are  those  of  which  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  author. 
Righteousness  is  that  which  enables  us  to  stand  before  God, 


ROMANS  XIV.  18,  19.  669 

because  it  satisfies  the  demands  of  the  law.  It  is  the  righteous- 
ness of  faith,  both  objective  and  subjective;  peace  is  the  con- 
cord between  God  and  the  soul,  between  reason  and  conscience, 
between  the  heart  and  our  fellow-men.  And  the  joy  is  the  joy 
of  salvation ;  that  joy  which  only  those  who  are  in  the  fellow- 
ship of  the  Holy  Ghost  ever  can  experience. 

Verse  18.  For  he  that  in  these  things  serveth  Christ,  is 
acceptable  to  Grod  and  approved  of  men.  This  verse  is  a  con- 
firmation of  the  preceding.  These  spiritual  graces  constitute 
the  essential  part  of  religion ;  for  he  that  experiences  and  exer- 
cises these  virtues,  is  regarded  by  God  as  a  true  Christian,  and 
must  commend  himself  as  such  to  the  consciences  of  his  fellow- 
men.  Where  these  things,  therefore,  are  found,  difference  of 
opinion  or  practice  in  reference  to  unessential  points,  should 
not  be  allowed  to  disturb  the  harmony  of  Christian  intercourse. 
It  is  to  be  observed,  that  the  exercise  of  the  virtues  here  spoken 
of,  is  represented  by  the  apostle  as  a  service  rendered  to  Christ ; 
"he  that  in  these  things  serveth  Christ,"  &c.,  which  implies 
that  Christ  has  authority  over  the  heart  and  conscience. 
Instead  of  Iv  toutok:,  many  of  the  oldest  MSS.  read  iu  touto}, 
referring  to  nvsufiari:  'He  that  in  the  Holy  Spirit  serveth 
Christ.'  This  reading  is  adopted  by  Lachmann,  Tischendorf, 
and  many  others.  The  external  authorities,  however,  in  favour 
of  the  common  text,  are  of  much  weight,  and  the  context  seems 
to  demand  it. 

Vekse  19,  Let  us  therefore  follow  after  the  things  which 
make  for  peace,  and  things  whereby  one  may  edify  another. 
That  is,  let  us  earnestly  endeavour  to  promote  peace  and 
mutual  edification.  The  things  which  make  for  peace,  is  equi- 
valent to  peace  itself  [xa  r^c  dp^vr]i;=dp7j)/i^v;)  and  things 
wherewith  one  may  edify  another,  is  mutual  edification  {to.  r^c 
ocxo3ofjtrj(;=ocxodoi^ijv.)  This  verse  is  not  an  inference  from  the 
immediately  preceding,  as  though  the  meaning  were,  'Since 
peace  is  so  acceptable  to  God,  therefore  let  us  cultivate  it;'  but 
rather  from  the  whole  passage:  'Since  Christian  love,  the 
example  of  Christ,  the  comparative  insignificance  of  the  matters 
in  dispute,  the  honour  of  the  truth,  the  nature  of  real  religion, 
all  conspire  to  urge  us  to  mutual  forbearance,  let  us  endeavour 
to  promote  peace  and  mutual  edification.' 


6T0  ROMANS  XIV.  20. 

Veb.se  20.  For  meat  destroy  not  the  work  of  God.  This 
clause  is,  by  De  Brais  and  many  other  commentators,  con- 
sidered as  a  repetition  of  ver.  15.  "Destroy  not  him  with  thy 
meat,  for  whom  Christ  died."  The  work  of  G-od  then  means  a 
Christian  brother ;  see  Eph.  ii.  10.  Others  refer  the  passage 
to  the  immediately  preceding  verses,  in  which  the  nature  of 
true  religion  is  exhibited.  The  work  of  God,  in  that  case,  is 
piety,  and  the  exhortation  is,  *Do  not,  for  the  sake  of  indul- 
gence in  certain  kinds  of  food,  injure  the  cause  of  true  religion, 
i.  e.,  pull  not  down  what  God  is  building  up.'  The  figurative 
expression  used  by  the  apostle  /iij  xardXot,  pull  not  down, 
carries  out  the  figure  involved  in  the  preceding  verse.  Be- 
lievers are  to  be  edified,  i.  e.,  built  up.  They  are  the  building 
of  God,  which  is  not  to  be  dilapidated  or  injured  by  our  want 
of  love,  or  consideration  for  the  weakness  of  our  brethren. 

All  things  (i.  e.,  all  kinds  of  food)  are  pure;  hut  it  is  evil 
{xaxbv,  not  merely  hurtful,  but  sin,  evil  in  a  moral  sense)  for 
that  man  that  eateth  with  offence.  This  last  clause  admits  of 
two  interpretations.  It  may  mean.  It  is  sinful  to  eat  in  such  a 
way  as  to  cause  others  to  oflFend.  The  sin  intended  is  that  of 
one  strong  in  faith  who  so  uses  his  liberty  as  to  injure  his 
weaker  brethren.  This  is  the  view  commonly  taken  of  the 
passage,  and  it  agrees  with  the  general  drift  of  the  context, 
and  especially  with  the  following  verse,  where  causing  a  brother 
to  stumble  is  the  sin  against  which  we  are  cautioned.  A  com- 
parison, however,  of  this  verse  with  ver.  14,  where  much  the 
same  sentiment  is  expressed,  leads  many  interpreters  to  a  dif- 
ferent view  of  the  passage.  In  ver.  14  it  is  said,  '  Nothing  is 
common  of  itself,  but  to  him  that  esteemeth  any  thing  to  be 
unclean,  to  him  it  is  unclean;'  and  here,  'All  things  are  pure, 
but  it  is  evil  to  him  who  eateth  with  oflFence.'  To  eat  with 
offence,  and,  to  eat  what  we  esteem  impure,  are  synonymous 
expressions.  If  this  is  so,  then  the  sin  referred  to  is  that  which 
the  weak  commit,  who  act  against  their  own  conscience.  But 
throughout  the  whole  context,  to  oflFend,  to  cause  to  stumble, 
oflFence,  are  used,  not  of  a  man's  causing  himself  to  oflFend  his 
own  conscience,  but  of  one  man's  so  acting  as  to  cause  others 
to  stumble.  And  as  this  idea  is  insisted  upon  in  the  following 
verse,  the  common  interpretjition  is  to  be  preferred. 


ROMANS  XIV.  21.  671 

Verse  21.  It  is  good  neither  to  eat  flesh,  nor  to  drink  wine^ 
nor  any  thing  whereby  thy  brother  stumbleth,  or  is  offended,  or 
is  made  weak.  That  is,  abstaining  from  flesh,  wine,  or  any 
thing  else  which  is  injurious  to  our  brethren,  is  right,  i.  e., 
morally  obligatory;  {xalov,  id  quod  rectum  etprobum  est.)  The 
words  stumbleth,  offended,  made  iveak,  do  not,  in  this  con- 
nection, differ  much  from  each  other.  Calvin  supposes  they 
differ  in  force,  the  first  being  stronger  than  the  second,  and  the 
second  than  the  third.  The  sense  then  is,  '  We  should  abstain 
from  every  thing  whereby  our  brother  is  cast  down,  or  even 
offended,  or  in  the  slightest  degree  injured.'  This,  however, 
is  urging  the  terms  beyond  their  natural  import.  It  is  very 
common  with  the  apostle  to  use  several  nearly  synonymous 
words  for  the  sake  of  expressing  one  idea  strongly.  The  last 
two  words  [y]  axavoaXi^^trat  tj  da&euel)  are  indeed  omitted  in  some 
few  manuscripts  and  versions,  but  in  too  few  seriously  to  impair 
their  authority.  Mill  is  almost  the  only  editor  of  standing 
who  rejects  them. 

There  is  an  ellipsis  in  the  middle  clause  of  this  verse  which 
has  been  variously  supplied.  '  Nor  to  drink  wine,  nor  to  (drink) 
any  thing;'  others,  'nor  to  (do)  any  thing  whereby,  &c.'  Ac- 
cording to  the  first  method  of  supplying  the  ellipsis,  the  mean- 
ing is,  '  We  should  not  drink  wine,  nor  any  other  intoxicating 
drink,  when  our  doing  so  is  injurious  to  others.'  But  the  latter 
method  is  more  natural  and  forcible,  and  includes  the  other, 
'We  should  do  nothing  which  injures  others.'  The  ground  on 
which  some  of  the  early  Christians  thought  it  incumbent  on 
them  to  abstain  from  wine,  was  not  any  general  ascetic  prin- 
ciple, but  because  they  feared  they  might  be  led  to  use  wine 
which  had  been  offered  to  the  gods ;  to  which  they  had  the 
same  objection  as  to  meat  which  had  been  presented  in  sacrifice. 
'"'■  Augustinus  de  moribus  Manichaeorum,  II.  14,  Eo  tempore, 
quo  haec  scribebat  apostolus,  multa  immoliticia  caro  in  macello 
vendebatur.  Et  quia  vino  etiam  libabatur  Diis  gentilium,  multi 
fratres  infirmiores,  qui  etiam  rebus  his  venalibus  utebantur, 
penitus  a  carnibus  se  et  vino  cohibere  maluerunt,  quam  vel 
nescientes  incidere  in  earn,  quam  putabant,  cum  idolis  com- 
municationem."    Wetstein. 


672  ROMANS  XIV.  22. 

Verse  22.  Hast  thou  faith?  have  it  to  thyself  hefore  God. 
Ha'ppy  is   he  that  condemneth  not  himself  in  that  which  he 
alloweth.     Paul  presents  in  this  verse,  more  distinctly  than  he 
had  before  done,  the  idea  that  he  required  no  concession  of 
principle  or  renunciation  of  truth.     He  did  not  wish  them  to 
believe    a   thing   to   be   sinful  which    was   not   sinful,    or   to 
trammel  their  own  consciences  with  the  scruples  of  their  weaker 
brethren.     He  simply  required  them  to  use  their  liberty  in  a 
considerate  and  charitable  manner.     He,  therefore,  here  says, 
'Hast  thou  faith?  (i.  e.,  a  firm  persuasion,  e.  g.,  of  the  lawful- 
ness of  all  kinds  of  meat,)  it  is  well,  do  not  renounce  it,  but 
retain  it,  and  use  it  piously,  as  in  the  sight  of  God.'     Instead 
of  reading  the  first  clause  interrogatively.  Hast  thou  faith  ?  it 
may  be  read,  Thou  hast  faith.     It  is  then  presented  in  the 
form  of  an  objection,  which  a  Gentile  convert  might  be  disposed 
to  make  to  the  direction  of  the  apostle  to  accommodate  his 
conduct  to  the  scruples  of  others.      'Thou   hast  faith,    thou 
mayest  say ;  well,  have  it,  I  do  not  call  upon  thee  to  renounce 
it.'     By  faith  \iBYe  seems  clearly  to  be  understood  the  faith  of 
which  Paul  had  been  speaking  in  the  context ;  a  faith  which 
some  Christians  had,   and  others  had  not,  viz.,  a  firm  belief 
"that  there  is  nothing  (no  meat)  unclean  of  itself."     Have  it 
to  thyself,  {xara  aeaurbu  ^;(£,)  keep  it  to  yourself.     There  are 
two  ideas  included  in  this  phrase.     The  first  is,  keep  it  pri- 
vately, i.  e.,  do  not  parade  it,  or  make  it  a  point  to  show  that 
you  are  above  the  weak  scruples  of  your  brethren;  and  the 
second   is,    that   this   faith   or   firm   conviction   is   not  to   be 
renounced,  but  retained,  for  it  is  founded  on  the  truth.     Before 
Grod,  i.  e.,  in  the  sight  of  God.     As  God  sees  and  recognises  it, 
it  need  not  be  exhibited  before  men.     It  is  to  be  cherished  in 
our  hearts,  and  used  in  a  manner  acceptable  to  God.     Being 
right  in  itself,  it  is  to  be  piously,  and  not  ostentatiously  or 
injuriously  paraded  and  employed. 

Blessed  is  he  that  condemneth  not  himself  in  that  which  he 
alloweth.  That  is,  blessed  is  the  man  that  has  a  good  con- 
science; who  does  not  allow  himself  to  do  what  he  secretly 
condemns.  The  faith,  therefore,  of  which  the  apostle  had 
spoken,  is  a  great  blessing.  It  is  a  source  of  great  happiness 
to  be  sure  that  what  we  do  is  right,  and,  therefore,  the  firm 


ROMANS  XIV.  23.  073 

conviction  to  which  some  Christians  had  attained,  was  not  to  be 
undervalued  or  renounced.  Compare  chap.  i.  28,  1  Cor.  xvi.  3, 
for  a  similar  use  of  the  word  [doxc/ud^aj)  here  employed.  This 
interpretation  seems  better  suited  to  the  context,  and  to  the 
force  of  the  words,  than  another  which  is  also  frequently  given, 
'Blessed  is  the  man  who  does  not  condemn  himself,  i.  e.,  give 
occasion  to  others  to  censure  him  for  the  use  which  he  makes 
of  his  liberty.'  This  gives  indeed  a  good  sense,  but  it  does  not 
adhere  so  closely  to  the  meaning  of  the  text,  nor  does  it  so  well 
agree  with  what  follows. 

Verse  23.  But  he  that  douhteth  is  damned  if  he  eat^  because 
he  eateth  not  of  faith;  for  whatsoever  is  not  of  faith  is  sin. 
That  is,  however  sure  a  man  may  be  that  what  he  does  is  right,' 
he  cannot  expect  others  to  act  on  his  faith.  If  a  man  thinks  a 
thing  to  be  wrong,  to  him  it  is  wrong.  He,  therefore,  who  is 
uncertain  whether  God  has  commanded  him  to  abstain  from 
certain  meats,  and  who  notwithstanding  indulges  in  them,  evi- 
dently sins;  he  brings  himself  under  condemnation.  Because 
whatever  is  not  of  faith  is  sin ;  i.  e.,  whatever  we  do  which  we 
are  not  certain  is  right,  to  us  is  wrong.  The  sentiment  of  this 
verse,  therefore,  is  nearly  the  same  as  of  ver.  14.  "  To  him  that 
esteemeth  any  thing  to  be  unclean,  to  him  it  is  unclean."  There 
is  evidently  a  sinful  disregard  of  the  divine  authority  on  the 
part  of  a  man  who  does  any  thing  which  he  supposes  God  has 
forbidden,  or  which  he  is  not  certain  he  has  allowed.  The 
principle  of  morals  contained  in  this  verse  is  so  obvious,  that 
it  occurs  frequently  in  the  writings  of  ancient  philosophers. 
Cicero  de  Officiis,  lib.  1,  c.  9.  Quodcirca  bene  praecipiunt,  qui 
vetant  quidquam  agere,  quod  dubites,  aequum  sit,  an  iniquum. 
Aequitas  enim  lucet  ipsa  per  se :  dubitatio  cogitationera  sig- 
nificat  injuriae.  This  passage  has  an  -obvious  bearing  on  the 
design  of  the  apostle.  He  wished  to  convince  the  stronger 
Christians  that  it  was  unreasonable  in  them  to  expect  their 
weaker  brethren  to  act  according  to  their  faith ;  and  that  it 
was  sinful  in  them  so  to  use  their  liberty  as  to  induce  these 
scrupulous  Christians  to  violate  their  own  consciences.* 

*  The  three  verses  which,  in  the  common  text,  occur  at  the  close  of  chapter 
xvi.,  are  found  at  the  close  of  this  chapter  in  the  MSS.  A,  and  in  all  those 
written  in  small  letters  on  Wetstein's  catalogue,  from  1  to  55,  except  13,  15, 

43 


674  ROMANS  XIV.  1—23. 


DOCTRINE. 


1.  The  fellowship  of  the  saints  is  not  to  be  broken  for  unes- 
sential matters ;  in  other  words,  we  have  no  right  to  make  any 
thing  a  condition  of  Christian  communion  which  is  compatible 
with  piety.  Paul  evidently  argues  on  the  principle  that  if  a 
man  is  a  true  Christian,  he  should  be  recognised  and  treated  as 
such.  If  God  has  received  him,  we  should  receive  him, 
vs.  1—12. 

2.  The  true  criterion  of  a  Christian  character  is  found  in  the 
governing  purpose  of  the  life.  He  that  lives  unto  the  Lord, 
i.  e.,  he  who  makes  the  will  of  Christ  the  rule  of  his  conduct, 
and  the  glory  of  Christ  his  constant  object,  is  a  true  Christian, 
although  from  weakness  or  ignorance  he  may  sometimes  mistake 
the  rule  of  duty,  and  consider  certain  things  obligatory  which 
Christ  has  never  commanded,  vs.  6 — 8. 

3.  Jesus  Christ  must  be  truly  God,  1.  Because  he  is  the  Lord, 

16,  25,  27,  28,  50,  53,  (two  of  these,  27,  53,  do  not  contain  this  epistle,  and 
25,  28,  are  here  defective.)  To  these  are  to  be  added  many  others  examined 
by  later  editors,  making  one  hundred  and  seven  MSS.  in  which  the  passage 
occurs  at  the  close  of  this  chapter.  Of  the  versions,  only  the  later  Syriac, 
Sclavonic,  and  Arabic,  assign  it  this  position ;  with  which,  however,  most  of 
the  Greek  fathers  coincide.  Beza,  (in  his  1st  and  2d  editions,)  Grotius, 
Mill,  Hammond,  Wetstein,  Griesbach,  consider  the  passage  to  belong  to  this 
chapter. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  MSS.  C.  D.  E.,  and  several  of  the  codd.  minusc,  the 
early  Syriac,  Coptic,  Ethiopic,  and  Vulgate  versions,  and  the  Latin  fathers, 
place  the  contested  verses  at  the  close  of  chapter  xvi.  This  location  is  adopted 
in  the  Complutensian  edition,  by  Erasmus,  Stephens,  Beza,  (in  his  3d,  4th, 
and  5th  editions,)  Bengel,  Koppe,  Knapp,  Lachmann,  and  others. 

These  verses  are  left  out  in  both  places  in  the  MSS  F.  G.  57,  67,  68,  69,  70. 
And  are  found  in  both  places  in  A.  17,  and  in  the  Armenian  version.  The 
weight  due  to  the  early  versions  in  deciding  such  a  question,  is  obviously  very 
great;  and  as  these  versions  all  coincide  with  the  received  text  and  some  of 
the  oldest  MSS.  in  placing  the  passage  at  the  close  of  the  epistle,  that  is  most 
probably  its  proper  place.  The  doxology  which  those  verses  contain,  so  evi- 
dently breaks  the  intimate  connection  between  the  close  of  the  14th  chapter 
and  the  beginning  of  the  15th,  that  it  is  only  by  assuming  with  Semler  that  the 
epistle  properly  terminates  here,  or  with  Tholuck  and  others  that  Paul,  after 
having  closed  with  a  doxology,  begins  anew  on  the  same  topic,  that  the 
presence  of  the  passage  in  this  place  can  be  accounted  for.  But  both  these 
assumptions  are  unauthorized,  and  that  of  Semler  destitute  of  the  least  plausi- 
bility — See  Koppe's  Excursus  II.  to  this  epistle. 


ROMANS  XIV.  1—23.  675 

according  to  whose  will  and  for  whose  glory  we  are  to  live,  vs. 
6 — 8.  2.  Because  he  exercises  an  universal  dominion  over  the 
living  and  the  dead,  ver.  9.  3.  Because  he  is  the  final  judge 
of  all  men,  ver.  10.  4.  Because  passages  of  the  Old  Testament 
which  are  spoken  of  Jehovah,  are  by  the  apostle  applied  to 
Christ,  ver.  11.  5.  Because,  throughout  this  passage,  Paul 
speaks  of  God  and  Christ  indiscriminately,  in  a  manner  which 
shows  that  he  regarded  Christ  as  God.  To  live  unto  Christ  is 
to  live  unto  God ;  to  stand  before  the  judgment-seat  of  Christ 
is  to  give  an  account  unto  God;  to  submit  to  Christ  is  to  bow 
the  knee  to  Jehovah. 

4.  The  gospel  does  not  make  religion  to  consist  in  external 
observances.  "  Meat  commendeth  us  not  to  God ;  for  neither 
if  we  eat  are  we  the  better ;  neither  if  we  eat  not  are  we  the 
worse,"  vs.  6,  7. 

5.  Though  a  thing  may  be  lawful,  it  is  not  always  expedient. 
The  use  of  the  liberty  which  every  Christian  enjoys  under  the 
gospel,  is  to  be  regulated  by  the  law  of  love ;  hence  it  is  often 
morally  wrong  to  do  what,  in  itself  considered,  may  be  innocent, 
vs.  15,  20,  21. 

6.  It  is  a  great  error  in  morals,  and  a  great  practical  evil,  to 
make  that  sinful  which  is  in  fact  innocent.  Christian  love  never 
requires  this  or  any  other  sacrifice  of  truth.  Paul  would  not 
consent,  for  the  sake  of  avoiding  off"ence,  that  eating  all  kinds 
of  food,  even  what  had  been  offered  to  idols,  or  disregarding 
sacred  festivals  of  human  appointment,  should  be  made  a  sin ; 
he  strenuously  and  openly  maintained  the  reverse.  He  repre- 
sents those  who  thought  differently,  as  weak  in  faith,  as  being 
under  an  error,  from  which  more  knowledge  and  more  piety 
would  free  them.  Concession  to  their  weakness  he  enjoins  on 
a  principle  perfectly  consistent  with  the  assertion  of  the  truth, 
and  with  the  preservation  of  Christian  liberty,  vs.  13 — 23. 

7.  Whatsoever  is  not  of  faith  is  sin.  It  is  wrong  to  do  any 
thing  which  we  think  to  be  wrong.  The  converse  of  this  pro- 
position, however,  is  not  true.  It  is  not  always  right  to  do  what 
we  think  to  be  right.  Paul,  before  his  conversion,  thought  it 
right  to  persecute  Christians ;  the  Jews  thought  they  did  God 
service  when  they  cast  the  disciples  of  the  Saviour  out  of  the 
synagogue.     The  cases,  therefore,  are  not  parallel.     When  we 


676  •         ROMANS  XIV.  1—23. 

do  what  we  think  God  has  forbidden,  we  are  evidently  guilty 
of  disobedience  or  contempt  of  the  divine  authority.  But  when 
we  do  what  we  think  he  has  required,  we  may  act  under  a  cul- 
pable mistake;  or,  although  we  may  have  the  judgment  that 
the  act  in  itself  is  right,  our  motives  for  doing  it  may  be  very 
wicked.  The  state  of  mind  under  which  Paul  and  other  Jews 
persecuted  the  early  Christians,  was  evil,  though  the  persecu- 
tion itself  they  regarded  as  a  duty.  It  is  impossible  that  a  man 
should  have  right  motives  for  doing  a  wrong  action ;  for  the 
very  mistake  as  to  what  is  right,  vitiates  the  motives.  The 
mistake  implies  a  wrong  state  of  mind ;  and,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  misapprehension  of  truth  produces  a  wrong  state  of  mind. 
There  may,  therefore,  be  a  very  sinful  zeal  for  God  and  reli- 
gion (see  Rom.  x.  2 ;)  and  no  man  will  be  able  to  plead  at  the 
bar  of  judgment,  his  good  intention  as  an  excuse  for  evil  con- 
duct, ver.  23. 

REMARKS. 

1.  Christians  should  not  allow  any  thing  to  alienate  them 
from  their  brethren,  who  afford  credible  evidence  that  they  are 
the  servants  of  God.  Owing  to  ignorance,  early  prejudice, 
weakness  of  faith,  and  other  causes,  there  may  and  must  exist 
a  diversity  of  opinion  and  practice  on  minor  points  of  duty. 
But  this  diversity  is  no  sufficient  reason  for  rejecting  from 
Christian  fellowship  any  member  of  the  family  of  Christ.  It 
is,  however,  one  thing  to  recognise  a  man  as  a  Christian,  and 
another  to  recognise  him  as  a  suitable  minister  of  a  church, 
organized  on  a  particular  form  of  government  and  system  of 
doctrines,  vs.  1 — 12. 

2.  A  denunciatory  or  censorious  spirit  is  hostile  to  the  spirit 
of  the  gospel.  It  is  an  encroachment  on  the  prerogatives  of  the 
only  Judge  of  the  heart  and  conscience :  it  blinds  the  mind  to 
moral  distinctions,  and  prevents  the  discernment  between  mat- 
ters unessential  and  those  vitally  important ;  and  it  leads  us  to 
forget  our  own  accountableness,  and  to  overlook  our  own  faults, 
in  our  zeal  to  denounce  those  of  others,  vs.  4 — 10. 

8.  It  is  sinful  to  indulge  contempt  for  those  whom  we  suppose 
to  be  our  inferiors,  vs.  3,  10. 

4.  Christians  should  remember  that,  living  or  dying,  they 
are  the  Lord's.     This  imposes  the  obligation  to  observe  his  will 


ROMANS  XIV.  1—23.  '  677 

and  to  seek  his  glory;  and  it  affords  the  assurance  that  the 
Lord  will  provide  for  all  their  wants.  This  peculiar  propriety 
in  his  own  people,  Christ  has  obtained  by  his  death  and  resur- 
rection, vs.  8,  9. 

5.  We  should  stand  fast  in  the  liberty  wherewith  Christ  has 
made  us  free,  and  not  allow  our  consciences  to  be  brought  under 
the  yoke  of  bondage  to  human  opinions.  There  is  a  strong  ten- 
dency in  men  to  treat,  as  matters  of  conscience,  things  which 
God  has  never  enjoined.  Wherever  this  disposition  has  been 
indulged  or  submitted  to,  it  has  resulted  in  bringing  one  class 
of  men  under  the  most  degrading  bondage  to  another;  and 
in  the  still  more  serious  evil  of  leading  them  to  disregard  the 
authority  of  God.  Multitudes  who  would  be  shocked  at  the 
thought  of  eating  meat  on  Friday,  commit  the  greatest  moral 
offences  without  the  slightest  compunction.  It  is,  therefore,  of 
great  importance  to  keep  the  conscience  free;  under  no  subjec- 
tion but  to  truth  and  God.  This  is  necessary,  not  only  on 
account  of  its  influence  on  our  own  moral  feelings,  but  also 
because  nothing  but  truth  can  really  do  good.  To  advocate 
even  a  good  cause  with  bad  arguments  does  great  harm,  by 
exciting  unnecessary  opposition ;  by  making  good  men,  who 
oppose  the  arguments,  appear  to  oppose  the  truth;  by  intro- 
ducing a  false  standard  of  duty ;  by  failing  to  enlist  the  support 
of  an  enlightened  conscience,  and  by  the  necessary  forfeiture 
of  the  confidence  of  the  intelligent  and  well  informed.  The 
cause  of  benevolence,  therefore,  instead  of  being  promoted,  is 
injured  by  all  exaggerations,  erroneous  statements,  and  false 
principles,  on  the  part  of  its  advocates,  vs.  14,  22. 

6.  It  is  obviously  incumbent  on  every  man  to  endeavour  to 
obtain  and  promote  right  views  of  duty,  not  only  for  his  own 
sake,  but  for  the  sake  of  others.  It  is  often  necessary  to  assert 
our  Christian  liberty  at  the  expense  of  incurring  censure,  and 
offending  even  good  men,  in  order  that  right  principles  of  duty 
may  be  preserved.  Our  Saviour  consented  to  be  regarded  as  a 
Sabbath-breaker,  and  even  "a  wine-bibber  and  friend  of  publi- 
cans and  sinners;"  but  wisdom  was  justified  of  her  children. 
Christ  did  not  in  these  cases  see  fit  to  accommodate  his  conduct 
to  the  rule  of  duty  set  up,  and  conscientiously  regarded  as  cor- 
rect by  those  around  him.     He  saw  that  more  good  would  arise 


678  '      ROMANS  XIV.  1—23. 

from  a  practical  disregard  of  the  false  opinions  of  the  Jews,  as 
to  the  manner  in  which  the  Sabbath  was  to  be  kept,  and  as  to 
the  degree  of  intercourse  which  was  allowed  with  wicked  men, 
than  from  concession  to  their  prejudices.  Enlightened  benevo- 
lence often  requires  a  similar  course  of  conduct,  and  a  similar 
exercise  of  self-denial  on  the  part  of  his  disciples. 

7.  While  Christian  liberty  is  to  be  maintained,  and  right 
principles  of  duty  inculcated,  every  concession  consistent  with 
truth  and  good  morals  should  be  made  for  the  sake  of  peace 
and  the  Avelfare  of  others.  It  is  important,  however,  that  the 
duty  of  making  such  concessions  should  be  placed  on  the  right 
ground,  and  be  urged  in  a  right  spirit,  not  as  a  thing  to  be 
demanded,  but  as  that  which  the  law  of  love  requires.  In  this 
way  success  is  more  certain  and  more  extensive,  and  the  con- 
comitant results  are  all  good.  It  may  at  times  be  a  difficult 
practical  question,  whether  most  good  would  result  from  com- 
pliance with  the  prejudices  of  others,  or  from  disregarding 
them.  But  where  there  is  a  sincere  desire  to  do  right,  and  a 
willingness  to  sacrifice  our  own  inclinations  for  the  good  of 
others,  connected  with  prayer  for  divine  direction,  there  can  be 
little  danger  of  serious  mistake.  Evil  is  much  more  likely  to 
arise  from  a  disregard  of  the  opinions  and  the  welfare  of  our 
brethren,  and  from  a  reliance  on  our  own  judgment,  than  from 
any  course  requiring  self-denial,  vs.  13,  15,  20,  21. 

8.  Conscience,  or  a  sense  of  duty,  is  not  the  only,  and 
perhaps  not  the  most  important  principle  to  be  appealed  to  in 
support  of  benevolent  enterprises.  It  comes  in  aid,  and  gives 
its  sanction  to  all  other  right  motives,  but  we  find  the  sacred 
writers  appealing  most  frequently  to  the  benevolent  and  pious 
feelings ;  to  the  example  of  Christ ;  to  a  sense  of  our  obligations 
to  him ;  to  the  mutual  relation  of  Christians,  and  their  common 
connection  with  the  Redeemer,  &c.,  as  motives  to  self-denial 
and  devotedness,  vs.  15,  21. 

9.  As  the  religion  of  the  gospel  consists  in  the  inward  graces 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  all  who  have  these  graces  should  be  recog- 
nised as  genuine  Christians;  being  acceptable  to  God,  they 
should  be  loved  and  cherished  by  his  people,  notwithstanding 
their  Aveakness  or  errors,  vs.  17,  18. 

10.  The  peace  and  edification  of  the  church  are  to  be  sought 


BOMANS  XV.  1—13.  679 

at  all  sacrifices  except  those  of  truth  and  duty ;  and  the  work 
of  God  is  not  to  be  destroyed  or  injured  for  the  sake  of  any 
personal  or  party  interests,  vs.  19,  20. 

11.  An  enlightened  conscience  is  a  great  blessing;  it  secures 
the  liberty  of  the  soul  from  bondage  to  the  opinions  of  men, 
and  from  the  self-inflicted  pains  of  a  scrupulous  and  morbid 
state  of  moral  feeling ;  it  promotes  the  right  exercise  of  all  the 
virtuous  affections,  and  the  right  discharge  of  all  relative 
duties,  ver.  22. 


CHAPTER    XV. 

CONTENTS. 

This  chapter  consists  of  two  parts.  In  the  former,  vs.  1 — 13, 
the  apostle  enforces  the  duty  urged  in  the  preceding  chapter, 
by  considerations  derived  principally  from  the  example  of 
Christ.  In  the  latter  part,  vs.  14 — 33,  we  have  the  conclusion 
of  the  whole  discussion,  in  which  he  speaks  of  his  confidence  in 
the  Roman  Christians,  of  his  motives  in  writing  to  them,  of  his 
apostolical  office  and  labours,  and  of  his  purpose  to  visit  Rome 
after  fulfilling  his  ministry  for  the  saints  at  Jerusalem. 


ROMANS   XV.  1—13. 

ANALYSIS. 

The  first  verse  of  this  chapter  is  a  conclusion  from  the  whole 
of  the  preceding.  On  the  grounds  there  presented,  Paul 
repeats  the  command  that  the  strong  should  bear  with  the  in- 
firmities of  the  weak,  and  that  instead  of  selfishly  regarding 
their  own  interests  merely,  they  should  endeavour  to  promote 
the  welfare  of  their  brethren,  vs.  1,  2.  This  duty  he  enforces 
by  the  conduct  of  Christ,  who  has  set  us  an  example  of  perfect 
disinterestedness,  as  what  he  suffered  was  not  for  himself,  ver.  3. 
This  and  similar  facts  and  sentiments  recorded  in  the  Scripture 


680  ROMANS  XV.  1,  2. 

are  intended  for  our  admonition,  and  should  be  applied  for  that 
purpose,  ver.  4.  The  apostle  prays  that  God  would  bestow  on 
them  that  harmony  and  unanimity  which  he  had  urged  them  to 
cultivate,  vs.  5,  6.  He  repeats  the  exhortation  that  they  should 
receive  one  another,  even  as  Christ  had  received  them,  ver.  7. 
He  shows  how  Christ  had  received  them,  and  united  Jews  and 
Gentiles  in  one  body,  vs.  8 — 13. 

COMMENTARY. 

Verse  1.  We  then  that  are  strong  ought  to  bear  the  infirmi- 
ties of  the  weak,  and  not  to  please  ourselves.  The  separation  of 
this  passage  from  the  preceding  chapter  is  obviously  unhappy, 
as  there  is  no  change  in  the  subject.  'As  the  points  of  differ- 
ence are  not  essential,  as  the  law  of  love,  the  example  of  Christ, 
and  the  honour  of  religion  require  concession,  we  that  are  fully 
persuaded  of  the  indifference  of  those  things  about  which  our 
weaker  brethren  are  so  scrupulous,  ought  to  accommodate  our- 
selves to  their  opinions,  and  not  act  with  a  view  to  our  own 
gratification  merely.'  We  that  are  strong,  {dovarol,)  strong  in 
reference  to  the  subject  of  discourse,  i.  e.,  faith,  especially  faith 
in  the  Christian  doctrine  of  the  lawfulness  of  all  kinds  of  food, 
and  the  abrogation  of  the  Mosaic  law.  Ought  to  hear,  i.  e., 
ought  to  tolerate,  {^affvd^eiv.)  The  infirmities,  to.  aa&euijiJ.aTa, 
that  is,  the  prejudices,  errors,  and  faults  which  arise  from  weak- 
ness of  faith.  Compare  1  Cor.  ix.  20 — 22,  where  the  apostle  illus- 
trates this  command  by  stating  how  he  himself  acted  in  relation 
to  this  subject.  And  not  to  please  ourselves;  we  are  not  to  do 
every  thing  which  we  may  have  a  right  to  do,  and  make  our 
own  gratification  the  rule  by  which  we  exercise  our  Christian 
liberty.  "  Significat  non  oportere  studium  suum  dirigere  ad 
satisfactionem  sibi,  quemadmodum  solent,  qui  proprio  judicio 
contenti  alios  secure  negligunt."   Calvin. 

Verse  2.  Let  each  one  of  us  please  his  neighbour,  for  his 
good  for  edification.  The  principle  which  is  stated  negatively 
at  the  close  of  the  preceding  verse,  is  here  stated  affirmatively. 
We  are  not  to  please  ourselves,  but  others;  the  law  of  love  is 
to  regulate  our  conduct;  we  are  not  simply  to  ask  what  is  right 
in  itself,  or  what  is  agreeable,  but  also  what  is  benevolent  and 
pleasing  to  our  brethren.     The  object  which  we  should  have  in 


ROMANS  XV.  3.  681 

view  in  accommodating  ourselves  to  others,  however,  is  their 
good.  For  good  to  edification  most  probably  means  with  a 
view  to  his  good  so  that  he  may  be  edified.  The  latter  words, 
to  edification,  are,  therefore,  explanatory  of  the  former;  the 
good  we  should  contemplate  is  their  religious  improvement; 
which  is  the  sense  in  which  Paul  frequently  uses  the  word 
{ohodofxrj)  edification;  chap.  xiv.  19,  2  Cor.  x.  8,  Eph.  iv. 
12,  29.  It  is  not,  therefore,  a  weak  compliance  with  the 
wishes  of  others,  to  which  Paul  exhorts  us,  but  to  the  exercise 
of  an  enlightened  benevolence ;  to  such  compliances  as  have  the 
design  and  tendency  to  promote  the  spiritual  welfare  of  our 
neighbour. 

Verse  3.  For  even  Christ  pleased  not  himself,  hut  as  it  is 
written,  The  reproaches  of  them  that  reproached  thee  fell  on  me. 
'For  even  Christ,  so  infinitely  exalted  above  all  Christians,  was 
perfectly  disinterested  and  condescending.'  The  example  of 
Christ  is  constantly  held  up,  not  merely  as  a  model,  but  a 
motive.  The  disinterestedness  of  Christ  is  here  illustrated  by 
a  reference  to  the  fact  that  he  sufi"ered  not  for  himself,  but  for 
the  glory  of  God.  The  sorrow  which  he  felt  was  not  on  account 
of  his  own  privations  and  injuries,  but  zeal  for  God's  service 
consumed  him,  and  it  was  the  dishonour  which  was  cast  on  God 
that  broke  his  heart.  The  simple  point  to  be  illustrated  is 
the  disinterestedness  of  Christ,  the  fact  that  he  did  not  please 
himself.  And  this  is  most  afiectingly  done  by  saying,  in  the 
language  of  the  Psalmist,  (Ps.  Ixix.  10,)  "The  zeal  of  thy 
house  hath  eaten  me  up;  and  the  reproaches  of  them  that 
reproached  thee  are  fallen  upon  me;"  that  is,  such  was  my 
zeal  for  thee,  that  the  reproaches  cast  on  thee  I  felt  as  if 
directed  against  myself.  This  Psalm  is  so  frequently  quoted 
and  applied  to  Christ  in  the  New  Testament,  that  it  must  be 
considered  as  directly  prophetical.  Compare  John  ii.  17,  xv. 
25,  xix.  28,  Acts  i.  20.* 

*  Quod  si  regnet  in  nobis  Christus,  ut  in  fidelibus  suis  regnare  eum  necesse 
est,  hie  quoque  sensus  in  animis  nostris  vigebit,  ut  quicquid  derogat  Dei  glorisB 
non  allter  nos  excruciet,  quam  si  in  nobis  resident.  Eant  nunc,  quibus  summa 
votorum  est,  raaximos  honores  apud  eos  adipisci  qui  probris  omnibus  Dei  nomen 
afficiunt,  Christum  pedibus  conculcant,  evangelium  ipsius  et  contumeliose  lace- 
rant,  et  gladio  flammaque  persequuntur.  Non  est  sane  tutum  ab  iis  tantopere 
honorari,  a  quibus  non  modo  contemnitur  Christus,  sed  contumeliose  etiara 
tractatur. — Calvin. 


682  ROMANS  XV.  4,  5. 

Verse  4.  For  whatsoever  things  were  written  aforetime  were 
written  for  our  learning,  that  we,  through  patience  and  com- 
fort of  the  Scriptures  might  have  hope.  The  object  of  this 
verse  is  not  so  much  to  show  the  propriety  of  applying 
the  passage  quoted  from  the  Psalms  to  Christ,  as  to  show  that 
the  facts  recorded  in  the  Scriptures  are  designed  for  our 
instruction.  The  character  of  Christ  is  there  portrayed  that 
we  may  follow  his  example  and  imbibe  his  spirit.  The  rcpo  in 
TtpoeypdfT^  has  its  proper  temporal  sense ;  before  us,  before  our 
time.  The  reference  is  to  the  whole  of  the  Old  Testament 
Scriptures,  and  assumes,  as  the  New  Testament  writers  always 
assume  or  assert,  that  the  Scriptures  are  the  word  of  God,  holy 
men  of  old  writing  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 
God  had  an  immediate  design  in  the  Scriptures  being  just  what 
they  are ;  and  that  design  was  the  sanctification  and  salvation 
of  men.  The  words,  through  patience  and  consolation  of  the 
Scriptures,  may  be  taken  together,  and  mean,  'through  that 
patience  and  consolation  which  the  Scriptures  produce;'  or  the 
words  through  patience  may  be  disconnected  from  the  word 
Scriptures,  and  the  sense  be,  'that  we  through  patience,  and 
through  the  consolation  of  the  Scriptures,'  &c.  The  former 
method  is  the  most  commonly  adopted,  and  is  the  most  natural.* 
Might  have  hope.  This  may  mean,  that  the  design  of  the  divine 
instructions  is  to  prevent  all  despondency,  to  sustain  us  under 
our  present  trials ;  or  the  sense  is,  that  they  are  intended  to 
secure  the  attainment  of  the  great  object  of  our  hopes,  the 
blessedness  of  heaven.  Either  interpretation  of  the  word  hope 
is  consistent  with  usage,  and  gives  a  good  sense.  The  former 
is  more  natural. 

Verse  5.  JYow  the  Grod  of  patience  and  consolation  grant 
you  to  he  like  minded  one  towards  another,  according  to  Jesus 
Christ.  '  May  God,  who  is  the  author  of  patience  and  consola- 
tion, grant,'  &c.  Here  the  graces,  which  in  the  preceding  verse 
are  ascribed  to  the  Scriptures,  are  attributed  to  God  as  their 

*  The  MSS,  A.  C.  1,  29,  30,  34,  36,  38,  39,  41,  43,  47,  read  itk  before  w 
jratgaotAoVaac  which  would  render  the  second  mode  of  explaining  the  passage 
stated  in  the  text  the  more  probable.  The  Complatensian  edition,  Bengel, 
and  Lachmann,  adopt  this  reading,  though  the  preponderance  of  CTldence  is 
greatly  against  it. 


ROMANS  XV.  6.  683 

autlior,  because  lie  produces  them  by  his  Spirit,  through  the 
instrumentality  of  the  truth.  The  patience,  unofxovj,  of  which 
the  apostle  speaks,  is  the  calm  and  steadfast  endurance  of  suf- 
fering, of  which  the  consolation,  TiapaxX-^aci;,  afforded  by  the 
Scriptures,  is  the  source.  This  resignation  of  the  Christian  is 
very  different  from  stoicism,  as  Calvin  beautifully  remarks: 
"Patientia  fidelium  non  est  ilia  durities,  quam  prsecipiunt  phi- 
losophi:  sed  ea  mansuetudo,  qua  nos  libenter  Deo  subjicimus, 
dum  gustus  bonitatis  ejus  paternique  amoris  dulcia  omnia  nobis 
reddit.  Ea  spem  in  nobis  alit  ac  sustinet,  ne  deficiat."  Luther 
says :  "  Scriptura  quidem  docet,  sed  gratia  donat,  quod  ilia 
docet."  External  teaching  is  not  enough;  we  need  the  inward 
teaching  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  enable  us  to  receive  and  conform 
to  the  truths  and  precepts  of  the  word.  Hence  Paul  prays 
that  God  would  give  his  readers  the  patience,  consolation, 
and  hope  which  they  are  bound  to  exercise  and  enjoy.  Paul 
prays  that  God  would  grant  them  that  concord  and  unanimity 
which  he  had  so  strongly  exhorted  them  to  cherish.  The 
expression  (ro  abzb  (ppovelv,)  to  he  like  minded,  does  not  here 
refer  to  unanimity  of  opinion,  but  to  harmony  of  feeling ;  see 
chap.  viii.  5,  xii.  3.  According  to  Jesus  Christ,  i.  e.,  agreea- 
bly to  the  example  and  command  of  Christ;  in  a  Christian 
manner.  It  is,  therefore,  to  a  Christian  union  that  he  exhorts 
them. 

Verse  6.  That  ye  may  with  one  mind  and  with  one  mouth 
glorify  Grod,  even  the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  This 
harmony  and  fellowship  among  Christians  is  necessary,  in  order 
that  they  may  glorify  God  aright.  To  honour  God  effectually 
and  properly,  there  must  be  no  unnecessary  dissensions  among 
his  people.  Grod,  even  the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
means  either  that  God  who  is  the  Father  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  or 
the  God  and  Father  of  Christ.  This  expression  occurs  fre- 
quently in  the  New  Testament;  see  2  Cor.  i.  3,  xi.  31,  Eph. 
i.  3,  1  Pet.  i.  3.  Most  commonly  the  genitive  too  xopcou  is 
assumed  to  belong  equally  to  the  two  preceding  nouns,  God 
and  Father.  Many  of  the  later  commentators  restrict  it  to  the 
latter,  and  explain  xai  as  exegetical :  '  God,  who  is  the  Father 
of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.'  In  favour  of  this  explanation,  refer- 
ence is  made  to  such  passages  as  1  Cor.  xv.  24,  Eph.  v.  20,  and 


684  ROMANS  XV.  7,  8. 

others,  in  which  6  t^eoc  xal  narrjp  occur  without  the  genitive 
xoxi  xupcou  X.T.L 

Verse  7.  Wherefore  receive  ye  one  another^  as  Christ  also 
received  us,*  to  the  glory  of  Cfod.  Wherefore,  i.  e.,  in  order  that 
with  one  heart  thej  may  glorify  God.  This  cannot  be  done, 
unless  they  are  united  in  the  bonds  of  Christian  felloAvship. 
The  word  {jcpoaXafx^dvta&e)  receive,  has  the  same  sense  here 
that  it  has  in  chap.  xiv.  1 :  '  Take  one  another  to  yourselves, 
treat  one  another  kindly,  even  as  Christ  has  kindly  taken  us  to 
himself;'  Ttpoaekd^ero,  sibi  sociavit.  The  words,  to  the  glory  of 
^Grod,  may  be  connected  with  the  first  or  second  clause,  or  with 
both:  'Receive  ye  one  another,  that  God  may  be  glorified;' 
or,  '  as  Christ  has  received  us  in  order  that  God  might  be  glori- 
fied;' or,  if  referred  to  both  clauses,  the  idea  is,  'as  the  glory 
of  God  was  illustrated  and  promoted  by  Christ's  reception  of 
us,  so  also  will  it  be  exhibited  by  our  kind  treatment  of  each 
other.'  The  first  method  seems  most  consistent  with  the  con- 
text, as  the  object  of  the  apostle  is  to  enforce  the  duty  of  mutual 
forbearance  among  Christians,  for  which  he  suggests  two  mo- 
tives, the  kindness  of  Christ  towards  us,  and  the  promotion  of 
the  divine  glory.  If  instead  of  "received  us,"  the  true  reading 
is,  received  you,"  the  sense  and  point  of  the  passage  is  materi- 
ally altered.  Paul  must  then  be  considered  as  exhorting  the 
Gentile  converts  to  forbearance  towards  their  Jewish  brethren, 
on  the  ground  that  Christ  had  received  them,  though  aliens, 
into  the  commonwealth  of  Israel. 

Verse  8.  JSfow  I  say  that  Jesus  Christ  was  a  minister  of  the 
circumcision  for  the  truth  of  Grod,  to  confirm  the  promises  made 
unto  the  fathers.  This  verse  follows  as  a  confirmation  or  illus- 
tration of  the  preceding.  Now  I  say,  i.  e.,  this  I  mean.  The 
apostle  intends  to  show  how  it  was  that  Christ  had  received 
those  to  whom  he  wrote.  He  had  come  to  minister  to  the  Jews, 
ver.  8,  and  also  to  cause  the  Gentiles  to  glorify  God,  ver.  9. 
The  expression,  minister,  or  servant,  of  the  circumcision,  means 

*  For  yi/ji.a.(,  vfAoi  is  read  in  the  MSS.  A.  C.  D.  (ex  emendatione,)  E.  F.  G.  1, 
21,  23,  29,  30,  37,  38,  39,  43,  52,  61,  in  both  the  Syriac,  in  the  Coptic,  Gothic, 
Latin,  and  Armenian  versions,  and  in  several  of  the  Fathers.  It  is  adopted  in 
the  Complutensian  edition,  and  in  those  of  Griesbach,  Mill,  Knapp,  Lachmann, 
and  Tischendorf. 


ROMANS  XV.  9.  685 

a  minister  sent  to  the  Jews,  as  '  apostle  of  the  Gentiles,'  means 
*an  apostle  sent  to  the  Gentiles.'  For  the  truth  of  Grod,  i.  e., 
to  maintain  the  truth  of  God  in  the  accomplishment  of  the  pro- 
mises made  to  the  fathers,  as  is  immediately  added.  The  truth 
of  God  is  his  veracity  or  fidelity.  Christ  had  exhibited  the 
greatest  condescension  and  kindness  in  coming,  not  as  a  Lord 
or  ruler,  but  as  an  humble  minister  to  the  Jews,  to  accomplish 
the  gracious  promises  of  God.  As  this  kmdness  was  not  con- 
fined to  them,  but  as  the  Gentiles  also  were  received  into  his 
kingdom,  and  united  with  the  Jews  on  equal  terms,  this  exam- 
ple of  Christ  furnishes  the  strongest  motives  for  the  cultivation 
of  mutual  affection  and  unanimity. 

Verse  9.  And  that  the  Gentiles  might  glorify  Grod  for  his 
mercy.  Might  glorify,  oo^daac,  have  glorified.  The  effect  is 
considered  as  accomplished.  The  apostle's  language  is,  as 
usual,  concise.  There  are  two  consequences  of  the  work  of 
Christ  which  he  here  presents ;  the  one,  that  the  truth  of  God 
has  been  vindicated  by  the  fulfilment  of  the  promises  made  to 
the  Jews ;  and  the  other,  that  the  Gentiles  have  been  led  to 
praise  God  for  his  mercy.  The  grammatical  connection  of  this 
sentence  with  the  preceding  is  not  very  clear.  The  most  pro- 
bable explanation  is  that  which  makes  [do^daat)  glorify  depend 
upon  [Xiyco)  I  say,  in  ver.  8 :  '  I  say  that  Jesus  Christ  became 
a  minister  to  the  Jews,  and  I  say  the  Gentiles  have  glorified 
God;'  it  was  thus  he  received  both.  Calvin  supplies  oeZv,  and 
translates,  "The  Gentiles  ought  to  glorify  God  for  his  mercy;" 
which  is  not  necessary,  and  does  not  so  well  suit  the  context. 
The  mercy  for  which  the  Gentiles  were  to  praise  God,  is  obvi- 
ously the  great  mercy  of  being  received  into  the  kingdom  of 
Christ,  and  made  partakers  of  all  its  blessings. 

As  it  is  written,  I  will  confess  to  thee  among  the  Crentiles, 
and  sing  unto  thy  name,  Ps.  xviii.  49.  In  this  and  the  follow- 
ing quotations  from  the  Old  Testament,  the  idea  is  more  or  less 
distinctly  expressed,  that  true  religion  was  to  be  extended  to 
the  Gentiles ;  and  they  therefore  all  include  the  promise  of  the 
extension  of  the  Redeemer's  kingdom  to  them,  as  well  as  to  the 
Jews.  In  Psalm  xviii.  49,  David  is  the  speaker.  It  is  he  that 
says:  "I  will  praise  thee  among  the  Gentiles."  He  is  contem- 
plated as  surrounded  by  Gentiles  giving  thanks  unto  God,  which 


686  ROMANS  XV.  10—12. 

implies  that  they  were  the  worshippers  of  God.  Our  version 
renders  i^ofioXoyijaofiacy  I  will  confess^  make  acknowledgment 
to  thee.  The  word  in  itself  may  mean,  to  acknowledge  the 
truth,  or  sin,  or  God's  mercies;  and  therefore  it  is  properly 
rendered,  at  times,  to  give  thanks,  or  to  praise,  which  is  an 
acknowledgment  of  God's  goodness. 

Verse  10.  And  again,  Rejoice  ye  Grentiles  with  his  people. 
This  passage  is  commonly  considered  as  quoted  from  Deut. 
xxxii.  43,  where  it  is  found  in  the  Septuagint  precisely  as  it 
stands  here.  The  Hebrew  admits  of  three  interpretations, 
without  altering  the  text.  It  may  mean,  '  Praise  his  people,  ye 
Gentiles;'  or,  'Rejoice,  ye  tribes,  his  people;'  or,  'Rejoice, 
ye  Gentiles,  (rejoice,)  his  people.'  Hengensbenlerg  on  Ps. 
xviii.  50,  adopts  the  last  mentioned  explanation  of  the  passage 
in  Deuteronomy.  The  English  version  brings  the  Hebrew  into 
coincidence  with  the  LXX.  by  supplying  with:  'Rejoice,  ye 
Gentiles,  with  his  people.'  And  this  is  probably  the  true  sense. 
As  the  sacred  writer  (in  Deut.  xviii.)  is  not  speaking  of  the 
blessing  of  the  Jews  being  extended  to  the  Gentiles,  but  seems 
rather,  in  the  whole  context,  to  be  denouncing  vengeance  on 
them  as  the  enemies  of  God's  people,  Calvin  and  others  refer 
this  citation  to  Ps.  Ixvii.  3,  6,  where  the  sentiment  is  clearly 
expressed,  though  not  in  precisely  the  same  words. 

Verse  11.  And  again,  Praise  the  Lord,  all  ye  Grentiles;  and 
laud  him,  all  ye  people.  This  passage  is  from  Ps.  cxvii.  1,  and 
strictly  to  the  apostle's  purpose. 

Verse  12.  And  again,  Esaias  saith.  There  shall  be  a  root 
of  Jesse,  and  he  that  shall  rise  to  rule  over  the  Grentiles;  in  him 
shall  the  Grentiles  trust,  Isa.  xi.  1,  10,  This  is  an  explicit  pre- 
diction of  the  dominion  of  the  Messiah  over  other  nations 
besides  the  Jews.  Here  again  the  apostle  follows  the  Septua- 
gint, giving,  however,  the  sense  of  the  original  Hebrew.  The 
promise  of  the  prophet  is,  that  from  the  decayed  and  fallen 
house  of  David,  one  should  arise,  whose  dominion  should 
embrace  all  nations,  and  in  whom  Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews 
should  trust.  In  the  fulfilment  of  this  prophecy  Christ  came, 
and  preached  salvation  to  those  who  were  near  and  to  those 
who  were  far  off.  As  both  classes  had  been  thus  kindly  received 
by  the  condescending  Saviour,  and  united  into  one  community. 


ROMANS  XV.  14—33.  687 

they  should  recognise  and  love  each  other  as  brethren,  laying 
aside  all  censoriousness  and  contempt,  neither  judging  nor 
despising  one  another. 

Verse  13.  Now  then  the  Q-od  of  hope  fill  you  with  all  joy 
and  peace  in  believing,  that  ye  may  abound  in  hope  through  the 
power  of  the  Holy  Crhost.  All  joy  means  all  possible  joy.  Paul 
here,  as  in  ver.  5,  concludes  by  praying  that  God  would  grant 
them  the  excellencies  which  it  was  their  duty  to  possess.  Thus 
constantly  and  intimately  are  the  ideas  of  accountableness  and 
dependence  connected  in  the  sacred  Scriptures.  We  are  to 
work  out  our  own  salvation,  because  it  is  God  that  worketh  in 
us  both  to  will  and  to  do,  according  to  his  good  pleasure.  The 
Grod  of  hope,  i.  e.,  God  who  is  the  author  of  that  hope  which  it 
was  predicted  men  should  exercise  in  the  root  and  offspring  of 

Jesse. 

Fill  you  with  all  joy  and  peace  in  believing,  i.  e.,  fill  you  with 
that  joy  and  concord  among  yourselves,  as  well  as  peace  of  con- 
science and  peace  towards  God,  which  are  the  results  of  genuine 
faith.  That  ye  may  abound  in  hope.  The  consequence  of  the 
enjoyment  of  the  blessings,  and  of  the  exercise  of  the  graces 
just  referred  to,  would  be  an  increase  in  the  strength  and  joy- 
fulness  of  their  hope ;  through  the  power  of  the  Holy  Crhost, 
through  whom  all  good  is  given  and  all  good  exercised. 


ROMANS  XV.  14—33. 

ANALYSIS. 

The  apostle,  in  the  conclusion  of  his  epistle,  assures  the 
Romans  of  his  confidence  in  them,  and  that  his  motive  for 
writing  was  not  so  much  a  belief  of  their  peculiar  deficiency, 
as  the  desire  of  putting  them  in  mind  of  those  things  which 
they  already  knew,  vs.  14,  15.  This  he  was  the  rather  entitled 
to  do  on  account  of  his  apostolic  office,  conferred  upon  him  by 
divine  appointment,  and  confirmed  by  the  signs  and  wonders, 
and  abundant  success  with  which  God  had  crowned  his  minis- 
try, vs.  15,  16.  He  had  sufficient  ground  of  confidence  in  this 
respect,  in  the  results  of  his  own  labours,  without  at  all  encroach- 
ing upon  what  belonged  to  others ;  for  he  had  made  it  a  rule 


688  ROMANS  XV.  14. 

not  to  preach  where  others  had  proclaimed  the  gospel,  but  to 
go  to  places  where  Christ  was  previously  unknown,  vs.  17 — 21. 
His  labours  had  been  such  as  hitherto  to  prevent  the  execution 
of  his  purpose  to  visit  Rome.  Now,  however,  he  hoped  to  have 
that  pleasure,  on  his  way  to  Spain,  as  soon  as  he  had  accom- 
plished his  mission  to  Jerusalem,  with  the  contributions  of  the 
Christians  in  Macedonia  and  Achaia,  for  the  poor  saints  in 
Judea,  vs.  22 — 28.  Having  accomplished  this  service,  he  hoped 
to  visit  Rome  in  the  fulness  of  the  blessing  of  the  gospel  of 
Christ.  In  the  mean  time  he  begs  an  interest  in  their  prayers, 
and  commends  them  to  the  grace  of  God,  vs.  29 — 33. 

COMMENTARY. 
Verse  14.  And  I  myself  also  am  persuaded  of  you,  my 
brethren,  that  ye  also  are  full  of  goodness,  filled  with  all  know- 
ledge, able  also  to  admonish  one  another.*  Paul,  with  his 
wonted  modesty  and  mildness,  apologises,  as  it  were,  for  the 
plainness  and  ardour  of  his  exhortations.  They  were  given 
from  no  want  of  confidence  in  the  Roman  Christians,  and  they 
were  not  an  unwarrantable  assumption  of  authority  on  hi^  part. 
The  former  of  these  ideas  'he  presents  in  this  verse,  and  the 
latter  in  the  next.  I  also  myself,  i.  e.,  I  of  myself,  without  the 
testimony  of  others.  Paul  had  himself  such  knowledge  of  the 
leading  members  of  the  church  of  Rome,  that  he  did  not  need 
to  be  informed  by  others  of  their  true  character.  That  ye  also 
are  full  of  goodness,  i.  e.,  of  kind  and  conciliatory  feelings;  or, 
taking  ayad^coabvq  in  its  wider  sense,  full  of  virtue,  or  excel- 
lence. Filled  with  all  knowledge,  i.  e.,  abundantly  instructed 
on  these  subjects,  so  as  to  be  able  to  instruct  or  admonish  each 
other.  It  was,  therefore,  no  want  of  confidence  in  their  dispo- 
sition or  ability  to  discharge  their  duties,  that  led  him  to  write 
to  them;  his  real  motive  he  states  in  the  next  verse.  They 
were  able,  voud-szslv,  to  put  in  mind,  to  bring  the  truth  seasona- 
bly to  bear  on  the  mind  and  conscience.  It  does  not  refer 
exclusively  to  the  correction  of  faults,  or  to  reproof  for  trans- 

*  For  (iAX«'A.o«/f,  each  other,  axxsj/f,  others,  is  read  in  the  MSS.  1,  2,  4,  6,  10,  14, 
15,  17,  18.' JO,  23,  29,  32,  35,  38,  43,  46,  48,  52,  54,  62,  63;  in  the  Syriac  ver- 
sion, and  by  many  of  the  Greek  Fathers.  The  Complutensian  editors,  Beza, 
Wetetein,  and  Griesbach,  adopt  this  reading. 


ROMANS  XV.  15,  16.  689 

gression.  "Duae  monitoris  praecipuse  sunt  dotes,  humanitas 
quae  et  illius  animum  ad  juvandos  consilio  suo  fratres  inclinet, 
et  vultum  verbaque  comitate  temperet :  et  consilii  dexteritas, 
sive  prudentia,  quae  et  auctoritatem  illi  conciliet,  ut  prodesse 
queat  auditoribus,  ad  quos  dirigit  sermonem.  Nihil  enim  magis 
contrarium  fraternis  monitionibus,  quam  malignitas  et  arrogan- 
tia,  quae  facit  ut  errantes  fastuose  contemnamus,  et  ludibrio 
habere  malimus,  quam  corrigere."    Calvin. 

Verse  15.  Nevertheless,  brethren,  I  have  ivritten  the  more 
loldly  unto  you  in  some  sort,  as  j)utting  you  in  mind,  because  of 
the  grace  given  to  me  of  God.  It  was  rather  to  remind  than  to 
instruct  them,  that  the  apostle  wrote  thus  freely.  The  words 
[d.7:b  fiipoui-)  in  some  sort,  are  intended  to  qualify  the  words 
more  boldly,  'I  have  written  somewhat  too  boldly.'  How 
striking  the  blandness  and  humility  of  the  great  apostle !  The 
preceding  exhortations  and  instructions,  for  which  he  thus 
apologises,  are  full  of  affection  and  heavenly  wisdom.  What  a 
reproof  is  this  for  the  arrogant  and  denunciatory  addresses 
which  so  often  are  given  by  men  who  think  they  have  Paul  for 
an  example !  These  words,  {in  some  sort,)  however,  may  be 
connected  with  /  have  written;  the  sense  would  then  be,  'I 
have  written  in  part  (i.  e.,  in  some  parts  of  my  epistle)  very 
boldly.'  The  former  method  seems  the  more  natural.  When  a 
man  acts  the  part  of  a  monitor,  he  should  not  only  perform  the 
duty  properly,  but  he  should,  on  some  ground,  have  a  right  to 
assume  this  oflSce.  Paul  therefore  says,  that  he  reminded  the 
Romans  of  their  duty,  because  he  was  entitled  to  do  so  in 
virtue  of  his  apostolical  character ;  because  of  the  grace  given 
to  me  of  Grod.  G-raee  here,  as  appears  from  the  context, 
signifies  the  apostleship  which  Paul  represents  as  a  favour ;  see 
chap  i.  5. 

Verse  16.  That  I  should  be  the  minister  of  Jesus  Christ  to 
the  Cf-entiles;  XecTOupybv  ei<;  xa  i&va,  a  minister  for,  or,  in  refer- 
ence to  the  Gentiles.  This  is  the  explanation  of  the  grace 
given  to  him  of  God ;  it  was  the  favour  of  being  a  minister  of 
Jesus  Christ  to  the  Gentiles.  Compare  Eph.  iii,  1,  "  Unto  me, 
who  am  the  least  of  all  saints,  is  this  grace  given,  that  I  should 
preach,  among  the  Gentiles,  the  unsearchable  riches  of  Christ." 
The  word  {?.ecToupy6<;)  rendered  minister,  means  a  public  officer 
44 


690  ROMANS  XV.  16. 

or  servant;  see  chap.  xiii.  6,  where  it  is  applied  to  the  civil 
magistrate.  It  is,  however,  very  frequently  used  (as  is  also 
the  corresponding  verb)  of  those  who  exercised  the  office  of  a 
priest,  Deut.  x.  8,  Heb.  x.  11.  As  the  whole  of  this  verse  is 
figurative,  Paul  no  doubt  had  this  force  of  the  word  in  his 
mind,  when  he  called  himself  a  minister,  a  sacred  officer  of 
Jesus  Christ ;  not  a  priest,  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  term,  for 
the  ministers  of  the  gospel  are  never  so  called  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament, but  merely  in  a  figurative  sense.  The  sacrifice  which 
they  oifer  are  the  people,  whom  they  are  instrumental  in 
bringing  unto  God. 

Ministering  the  gospel  of  God,  that  the  offering  up  of  the 
Gentiles  might  be  acceptable,  being  sanctified  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 
This  is  the  apostle's  explanation  of  the  preceding  clause.  '  He 
was  appointed  a  minister  of  Christ  to  administer,  or  to  act  the 
part  of  a  priest  in  reference  to  the  gospel,  that  is,  to  present 
the  Gentiles  as  a  holy  sacrifice  to  God.'  Paul,  therefore,  no 
more  calls  himself  a  priest  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  term,  than 
he  calls  the  Gentiles  a  sacrifice  in  the  literal  meaning  of  that 
word.  The  expression,  {Izpoopfouvza  zb  euayyiXcov)  rendered 
ministering  the  gospel,  is  peculiar,  and  has  been  variously 
explained.  Erasmus  translates  it  sacrifieans  evangelium,  'pre- 
senting the  gospel  as  a  sacrifice;'  Calvin,  consecrans  evan- 
gelium, which  he  explains,  '  performing  the  sacred  mysteries  of 
the  gospel.'  The  general  meaning  of  the  phrase  probably  is, 
'acting  the  part  of  a  priest  in  reference  to  the  gospel.'  Com- 
pare Mace.  iv.  7,  8,  Upooye7u  zbv  vofxov. 

The  sense  is  the  same,  if  the  word  {tbayyiXeou)  gospel  be 
made  to  depend  on  a  word  understood,  and  the  whole  sentence 
be  resolved  thus,  '  That  I  should  be  a  preacher  of  the  gospel 
(sfC  ^0  £^J^«'  P-^  x^puaaovza  zb  eu)  to  the  Gentiles,  a  ministering 
priest  (i.  e.,  a  minister  acting  the  part  of  a  priest)  of  Jesus 
Christ,'  Wahl's  Clavis,  p.  740.  Paul  thus  acted  the  part  of  a 
priest  that  the  offering  of  the  Gentiles  might  be  acceptable. 
The  word  [Trpoacpopd)  offering  sometimes  means  the  act  of  obla- 
tion, sometimes  the  thing  offered.  Our  translators  have  taken 
it  here  in  the  former  sense ;  but  this  is  not  so  suitable  to  the 
figure  or  the  context.  It  was  not  Paul's  act  that  was  to  be 
acceptable,  or  which  was  '  sanctified  by  the  Holy  Spirit.'     The 


ROMANS  XV.  17.  •     691 

latter  sense  of  the  word,  therefore,  is  to  be  preferred;  and 
the  meaning  is,  '  That  the  Gentiles,  as  a  sacrifice,  might  be 
acceptable ;'  see  chap.  xii.  1,  Phil.  ii.  17,  2  Tinj.  iv.  6.  Being 
sanctified  hy  the  Holy  G-host.  As  the  sacrifices  were  purified 
by  water  and  other  means,  when  prepared  for  the  altar,  so 
we  are  made  fit  for  the  service  of  God,  rendered  holy  or 
acceptable,  by  the  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  This  is  an 
idea  which  Paul  never  omits ;  when  speaking  of  the  success  of 
his  labours,  or  of  the  efficacy  of  the  gospel,  he  is  careful  that 
this  success  should  not  be  ascribed  to  the  instruments,  but  to 
the  real  author.  In  this  beautiful  passage  we  see  the  nature 
of  the  only  priesthood  which  belongs  to  the  Christian  ministry. 
It  is  not  their  office  to  make  atonement  for  sin,  or  to  oifer  a 
propitiatory  sacrifice  to  God,  but  by  the  preaching  of  the 
gospel  to  bring  men,  by  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  to 
offer  themselves  as  a  living  sacrifice,  holy  and  acceptable  to 
God.  It  is  well  worthy  of  remark,  that  amidst  the  numerous 
designations  of  the  ministers  of  the  gospel  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, intended  to  set  forth  the  nature  of  their  office,  they  are 
never  officially  called  priests.  This  is  the  only  passage  in 
which  the  term  is  even  figuratively  applied  to  them,  and  that 
under  circumstances  which  render  its  misapprehension  impos- 
sible. They  are  not  mediators  between  God  and  man ;  they  do 
not  offer  propitiatory  sacrifices.  Their  only  priesthood,  as 
Theophylack  says,  is  the  preaching  of  the  gospel,  [aozr]  ydp  ^oi 
hpojaovT^  TO  xarayyiXkeiv  to  tuafyeXcov^)  and  their  off'erings  are 
redeemed  and  sanctified  men,  saved  by  their  instrumentality. 
"Et  sane  hoc  est  Christiani  pastovis  sacerdotium,  homines  in 
evangelii  obedientiam  subigendo  veluti  Deo  immolare;  non 
autem,  quod  superciliose  hactenus  Papistae  jactarunt,  oblatione 
Christi  homines  reconciliare  Deo.  Neque  tamen  ecclesiasticos 
pastores  simpliciter  hie  vocat  sacerdotes,  tanquam  perpetuo 
titulo  ;  sed  quum  dignitatem  efficaciamque  ministerii  vellet  com- 
mendare  Paulus,  hac  metaphora  per  occasionem  usus  est." 
Calvin. 

Verse  17.  I  have  therefore  whereof  to  glory  through  Jesus 
Christ  in  those  things  which  pertain  to  God.  That  is,  '  seeing 
I  have  received  this  office  of  God,  and  am  appointed  a  minister 
of  the  gospel  to  the  Gentiles,  I  have  {xauY/jotv)  confidence  and 


692  ROMANS  XV.  18,  19. 

rejoicing.*  As,  in  the  previous  verses,  Paul  had  asserted  his 
divine  appointment  as  an  apostle,  he  shows,  in  this  and  the  fol- 
lowing verses,  that  the  assertion  was  well  founded,  as  God  had 
crowned  his  labours  Avith  success,  and  sealed  his  ministry  with 
signs  and  wonders.  He,  therefore,  was  entitled,  as  a  minister 
of  God,  to  exhort  and  admonish  his  brethren  with  the  boldness 
and  authority  which  he  had  used  in  this  epistle.  This  boasting, 
however,  he  had  only  in  or  through  Jesus  Christ,  all  was  to  be 
attributed  to  him ;  and  it  was  in  reference  to  things  pertaining 
to  Grod,  i.  e.,  the  preaching  and  success  of  the  gospel,  not  to 
his  personal  advantages  or  wotldly  distinctions.  There  is 
another  interpretation  of  the  latter  part  of  this  verse,  which 
also  gives  a  good  sense.  '  I  have  therefore  ground  of  boasting, 
(i.  e.,  I  have)  offerings  for  God,  viz..  Gentile  converts.'  (The 
words  TO.  TTpbz  top  d-zov  are  understood  as  synonymous  with  the 
word  7rpo(T(popd  of  the  preceding  verse,  izpoaevey^d^evTa  being 
supplied.)  The  common  view  of  the  passage,  however,  is  more 
simple  and  natural. 

Verses  18,  19.  In  these  verses  the  apostle  explains  more 
fully  what  he  had  intended  by  saying  he  gloried,  or  exulted.  It 
was  that  God  had  borne  abundant  testimony  to  his  claims  as  a 
divinely  commissioned  preacher  of  the  gospel ;  so  that  he  had 
no  need  to  refer  to  what  others  had  done ;  he  was  satisfied  to 
rest  his  claims  on  the  results  of  his  own  labours  and  the  testi- 
mony of  God.  For  I  will  not  dare  to  speak  of  any  of  those 
things  which  Christ  hath  not  wrought  hy  me.  That  is,  '  I  will 
not  claim  the  credit  due  to  others,  or  appeal  to  results  which  I 
have  not  been  instrumental  in  effecting.'  According  to  another 
view,  the  meaning  is,  '  I  will  not  speak  of  any  thing  as  the 
ground  of  boasting  which  Christ  has  not  done  by  me.'  The 
contrast  implied,  therefore,  is  not  between  what  he  had  done 
and  what  others  had  accomplished,  but  between  himself  and 
Christ.  He  would  not  glory  in  the  flesh,  or  in  any  thing  per- 
taining to  himself,  but  only  in  Christ,  and  in  what  he  had 
accomplished.  The  conversion  of  the  Gentiles  was  Christ's 
work,  not  Paul's ;  and  therefore  Paul  could  glory  in  it  without 
self-exaltation.  It  is  to  be  remarked  that  the  apostle  repre- 
sents himself  as  merely  an  instrument  in  the  hands  of  Christ  for 
the  conversion  of  men ;    the  real  efficiency  he  ascribes  to  the 


ROMANS  XV.  19.  693 

Redeemer.  This  passage,  therefore,  exhibits  evidence  that 
Paul  regarded  Christ  as  still  exercising  a  controlling  9gency 
over  the  souls  of  men,  and  rendering  effectual  the  labours  of  his 
faithful  ministers.  Such  power  the  sacred  writers  never  attri- 
bute to  -any  being  but  God.  To  make  the  Gentiles  obedient, 
i.  e.,  to  the  gospel ;  compare  chap.  i.  5,  where  the  same  form 
of  expression  occurs.  The  obedience  of  which  Paul  speaks  is 
the  sincere  obedience  of  the  heart  and  life.  This  result  he  says 
Christ  effected,  through  his  instrumentality,  hi/  ivord  and  deed, 
not  merely  by  truth,  but  also  by  that  operation  which  Christ 
employed  to  render  the  truth  effectual.  It  was  not  only  by  the 
truth  as  presented  in  the  word,  but  also  by  the  effectual  inward 
operation  of  his  power,  that  Christ  converted  men  to  the 
faith. 

Yerse  19.  Through  mighty  signs  and  ivonders,  by  the  power 
of  the  Spirit  of  God,  i.  e.,  by  miracles,  and  by  the  influences 
of  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  Greek  is,  ev  o'r^duei  cnjfxtiiov  xae 
Tspdzuju,  iu  d'Ji'dfizc  znBUfiaro^  d-ycou,  that  is,  by  the  power  of 
(i.  e.,  which  comes  from)  signs  and  wonders,  and,  the  power 
which  flows  from  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  was  thus  Christ  rendered 
the  labours  of  Paul  successful.  He  produced  conviction,  or  the 
obedience  of  faith,  in  the  minds  of  the  Gentiles,  partly  by 
miracles,  partly  and  mainly  by  the  inward  working  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.  That  Christ  thus  exercises  divine  power  both  in 
the  external  world  and  in  the  hearts  of  men,  clearly  proves  that 
he  is  a  divine  person.  Signs  and  wonders  are  the  constantly 
recurring  words  to  designate  those  external  events  which  are 
produced,  not  by  the  operation  of  second  causes,  but  by  the 
immediate  efficiency  of  God.  They  are  called  signs  because 
evidences  of  the  exercise  of  God's  power  and  proofs  of  the 
truth  of  his  declarations,  and  wonders  because  of  the  effect 
which  they  produce  on  the  minds  of  men.  This  passage  is, 
therefore,  analogous  to  that  in  1  Cor.  ii.  4,  "  My  speech  and 
preaching  was  not  in  the  enticing  words  of  man's  wisdotia,  but 
in  demonstration  of  the  Spirit  and  of  power."  That  is,  he 
relied  for  success  not  on  his  own  skill  or  eloquence,  but  on  the 
powerful  demonstration  of  the  Spirit.  This  demonstration  of 
the  Spirit  consisted  partly  in  the  miracles  which  he  enabled 
the  first  preachers  of  the  gospel  to  perform,  and  partly  in  the 


6&4  EOMANS  XV.  20,  21. 

influence  with  which  he  attended  the  truth  to  the  hearts 
and  aonsciences  of  those  that  believed;  see  Gal.  iii.  2 — 5, 
Heb.  ii.  4. 

So  that  from  Jerusalem,  and  round  about  unto  Illyrieum^ 
I  have  fully  preached  the  gospel  of  Christ.  Round  about,  xac 
xbxkw,  in  a  circle.  Jerusalem  was  the  centre  around  which 
Paul  prosecuted  his  labours.  He  means  to  say,  that  through- 
out a  most  extensive  region  I  have  successfully  preached  the 
gospel.  God  had  given  his  seal  to  Paul's  apostleship,  by 
making  him  so  abundantly  useful.  I  have  fully  preached, 
expresses,  no  doubt,  the  sense  of  the  original,  [TztTthjpcoxhac  to 
thaYyiXcov,)  to  bring  the  gospel  (i.  e.,  the  preaching  of  it)  to  an 
end,  to  accomplish  it  thoroughly ;  see  Col.  i.  25.  In  this  wide 
circuit  had  the  apostle  preached,  founding  churches,  and 
advancing  the  Redeemer's  kingdom  with  such  evidence  of  the 
divine  cooperation,  as  to  leave  no  gi'ound  of  doubt  that  he  was 
a  divinely  appointed  minister  of  Christ. 

Verses  20,  21.  In  further  confirmation  of  this  point,  Paul 
states  that  he  had  not  acted  the  part  of  a  pastor  merely,  but  of 
an  apostle,  or  founder  of  the  church,  disseminating  the  gospel 
where  it  was  before  unknown,  so  that  the  evidence  of  his  apos- 
tleship might  be  undeniable;  compare  1  Cor.  ix.  2,  "If  I  be 
not  an  apostle  unto  others,  yet  doubtless  I  am  to  you ;  for  the 
seal  of  my  apostleship  are  ye  in  the  Lord;"  and  2  Cor.  iii.  2,  3, 
Yea,  so  have  I  strived  to  preach  the  gospel,  not  where  Christ 
was  named,  lest  I  should  build  on  another  man's  foundation; 
that  is,  '  I  have  been  desirous  of  not  preaching  where  Christ 
was  before  known,  but  in  such  a  way  as  to  accomplish  the  pre- 
diction that  those  who  had  not  heard  should  understand.' 
0do-rc/jie7a&a(,  so  to  prosecute  an  object  as  to  place  one's  honour 
in  it.  The  motive  which  influenced  him  in  taking  this 
course,  was  lest  he  should  build  upon  another  man's  founda- 
tion. This  may  mean  either,  lest  I  should  appropriate  to 
myself  the  result  of  other  men's  labours ;  or,  lest  I  should  act 
the  part  not  of  an  apostle,  (to  which  I  was  called,)  but  of  a 
simple  pastor. 

Verse  21.  But,  as  it  is  written.  To  whom  he  was  not  spoken 
of  they  shall  see;  and  they  that  have  not  heard  shall  under- 
stand.    That  is,  I  acted  in  the  spirit  of  the  prediction,  that 


ROMANS  XV.  22—24.  695 

Christ  should  be  preached  where  he  had  not  been  known.  It 
had  been  foretold  in  Isa.  Hi.  15,  that  Christ  should  be  preached 
to  the  Gentiles,  and  to  those  who  had  never  heard  of  his  name ; 
it  was  in  accordance  with  this  prediction  that  Paul  acted. 
There  is,  however,  no  objection  to  considering  this  passage  as 
merely  an  expression,  in  borrowed  language,  of  the  apostle's 
own  ideas ;  the  meaning  then  is,  '  I  endeavoured  to  preach  the 
gospel  not  where  Christ  was  named,  but  to  cause  those  to  see 
to  whom  he  had  not  been  announced,  and  those  to  understand 
who  had  not  heard.'  This  is  in  accordance  with  the  apostle's 
manner  of  using  the  language  of  the  Old  Testament ;  see  chap. 
X.  15,  18.  But  as,  in  this  case,  the  passage  cited  is  clearly  a 
prediction,  the  first  method  of  explanation  should  probably  be 
preferred.  A  result  of  this  method  of  interweaving  passages 
from  the  Old  Testament,  is  often,  as  in  this  case  and  ver.  3,  a 
want  of  grammatical  coherence  between  the  different  members 
of  the  sentence ;  see  1  Cor.  ii.  9. 

Verse  22.  For  which  cause  also  I  have  been  much  hindered 
from  coming  to  you.  That  is,  his  desire  to  make  Christ  known 
where  he  had  not  been  named,  had  long  prevented  his  intended 
journey  to  Rome,  where  he  knew  the  gospel  had  already  been 
preached.  Much,  zd  nokXd,  plerumque,  in  most  cases.  The 
pressure  of  the  constant  calls  to  preach  the  gospel  where  he 
then  was,  was  the  principal  reason  why  he  had  deferred  so  long 
visiting  Rome.  Hindered  from  coming,  ivexoTirofxrjv  rou  k)3ftv, 
the  genitive  following  verbs  signifying  to  hinder. 

Verse  23.  But  now  having  no  more  -place  in  these  parts,  and 
having  a  great  desire  these  many  years  to  come  unto  you,  &c. 
Grreat  desire,  incnod-cau,  summum  desiderium.  The  expression, 
having  no  more  place  [firjxivc  zonov  iy^oav,)  in  this  connection, 
would  seem  obviously  to  mean,  'having  no  longer  a  place  in 
these  parts  where  Christ  is  not  known.'  This  idea  is  included 
in  the  declaration  that  he  had  fully  preached  the  gospel  in  all 
that  region.  Others  take  the  word  [zotiov)  rendered  place,  to 
signify  occasion,  opportunity,  '  Having  no  longer  an  opportunity 
of  preaching  here;'  see  Acts  xxv.  16,  Heb.  xii.  17. 

Verse  24.  Whensoever  I  taJce  my  journey  into  Spain,  I  will 
come  to  you;  for  I  trust  to  see  you  in  my  journey,  and  to  he 
brought  on  my  way  thitherward  by  you,  if  first  I  be  somewhat 


ROMANS  XV.  25—27. 

filled  with  your  company.  Whensoever  (<i;c  ^dv  for  ojc  ^v,)  as 
soon  as;  'As  soon  as  I  take  my  journey/  &c.  The  words  in  the 
original,  corresponding  to  I  will  come  unto  you,  for  are  omitted 
in  many  MSS.*  The  sense  is  complete  without  them :  'As  soon 
as  I  take  my  journey  into  Spain,  I  hope  to  see  you  on  my  way.' 
If  the  word  for  be  retained,  the  passage  must  be  differently 
pointed :  '  Having  a  great  desire  to  see  you,  as  soon  as  I  go  to 
Spain,  (for  I  hope  on  my  way  to  see  you,  &c.,)  but  now  I  go  to 
Jerusalem.'  Spain,  the  common  Greek  name  for  the  great 
Pyrenian  Peninsula,  was  ^I^epia,  although  Iizavia  was  also 
used.  The  Romans  called  it  "lanavca.  Whether  Paul  ever 
accomplished  his  purpose  of  visiting  Spain,  is  a  matter  of  doubt. 
There  is  no  historical  record  of  his  having  done  so,  either  in  the 
New  Testament,  or  in  the  early  ecclesiastical  writers ;  though 
most  of  those  writers  seem  to  have  taken  it  for  granted.  His 
whole  plan  was  probably  deranged  by  the  occurrences  at  Jeru- 
salem, which  led  to  his  long  imprisonment  at  Cesarea,  and  his 
being  sent  in  bonds  to  Rome.  To  he  brought  on  my  way.  The 
original  word  means,  in  the  active  voice,  to  attend  any  one  on 
a  journey  for  some  distance,  as  an  expression  of  kindness  and 
respect;  and  also  to  make  provision  for  his  journey;  see  Acts 
XV.  3,  XX.  38,  1  Cor.  xvi.  6,  2  Cor.  i.  16. 

Verse  25.  But  now  I  go  unto  Jerusalem  to  minister  unto  the 
saints,  i.  e.,  to  supply  the  wants  of  the  saints,  distributing  to 
them  the  contributions  of  the  churches ;  see  Heb.  vi.  10 ;  com- 
pare also  Matt.  viii.  15,  Mark  i.  31,  Luke  iv.  39.  The  word 
dcaxopeo)  is  used  for  any  kind  of  service.  The  present  partici- 
ple is  used  to  imply  that  the  journey  itself  was  a  part  of  the 
service  Paul  rendered  to  the  saints  at  Jerusalem. 

Verses  26,  27.  For  it  hath  pleased  them  of  Macedonia  and 
Achaia  to  make  a  contribution  for  the  poor  saints  which  are  at 
Jerusalem,.  To  make  a  contribution,  xoivcoucav  xiva  noir^aaadai^ 
to  bring  about  a  communion,  or  participation.  That  is,  to  cause 
the  poor  in  Jerusalem  to  partake  of  the  abundance  of  the  breth- 
ren in  Achaia.     In  this  way  the  ordinary  intransitive  sense  of 

*  The  MSS.  A.  C.  D.  E.  F.  G.  the  Syriac,  Coptic,  Ethiopic,  and  Latin  ver- 
sions, some  of  the  Greek,  and  most  of  the  Latin  Fathers,  omit  iKiua-o/uia  ^rgcc 
UjMif,  and  most  of  these  authorities  omit  -yd^  Mill,  Griesbach,  and  Knapp, 
omit  both;  Lachmann  retains  j/o'g. 


KOMANS  XV.  28,  29.  697 

the  word  xocvcovia  is  retained.  Compare,  however,  2  Cor.  ix.  13, 
and  Heb.  xiii.  16,  where  the  transitive  sense  of  the  word  is  com- 
monly preferred.  Having  mentioned  this  fact,  the  apostle 
immediately  seizes  the  opportunity  of  showing  the  reasonable- 
ness and  duty  of  making  these  contributions.  This  he  does  in 
such  a  way  as  not  to  detract  from  the  credit  due  to  the  Grecian 
churches,  while  he  shows  that  it  was  but  a  matter  of  justice  to 
act  as  they  had  done.  It  hath  pleased  them  verily;  and  their 
debtors  they  are;  i.  e.,  'It  pleased  them,  /  say  {ydp,  redor- 
diendce  orationi  inservit,)  they  did  it  voluntarily,  yet  it  was  but 
reasonable  they  should  do  it.'  The  ground  of  this  statement  is 
immediately  added :  For  if  the  Crentiles  have  been  made  par- 
takers of  their  spiritual  things^  their  duty  is  also  to  minister  to 
them  in  carnal  things.  'If  the  Gentiles  have  received  the 
greater  good  from  the  Jews,  they  may  well  be  expected  to  con- 
tribute the  lesser.'  The  word  {hizoopyrjaai)  rendered  to  minis- 
ter, may  have  the  general  sense  of  serving;  or  it  may  be  used 
with  some  allusion  to  the  service  being  a  sacred  duty,  a  kind 
of  offering  which  is  acceptable  to  God.  "Nee  dubito,  quin 
significet  Paulus  sacrificii  speciem  esse,  quum  de  suo  erogant 
fideles  ad  egestatem  fratrum  levandam.  Sic  enim  persolvunt 
quod  debent  caritatis  officium,  ut  Deo  simul  hostiam  grati  odoris 
offerant:  sed  proprie  hoc  loco  ad  illud  mutuum  jus  compensa- 
tionis  respexit."  Calvin.  This,  however,  is  not  very  probable, 
as  the  expression  is,  haoupy^aai  aozdi(;,  to  minister  to  them. 
The  XecToupjia  was  rendered  to  the  brethren,  not  to  God. 

Verse  28.  When  therefore  I  have  done  this,  and  sealed  unto 
them  this  fruit,  I  will  come  by  you  into  Spain.  The  word  sealed 
appears  here  to  be  used  figuratively,  '  When  I  have  safely  deli- 
vered this  fruit  to  them;'  compare  2  Kings  xxii.  4,  "Go  up 
to  Hilkiah,  the  high  priest,  and  sum  (seal,  oippdycaov,)  the 
silver,"  &c.  Commentators  compare  the  use  of  the  Latin  words 
consignare,  consignatio,  and  of  the  English  word  consign. 

Verse  29.  And  I  am  sure  that  when  I  come  unto  you,  I 
shall  come  in  the  fulness  of  the  blessing  of  the  gospel*  of  Christ, 

*  The  words  rov  el^-^yixiov  too  are  omitted  in  the  MSS.  A.  C.  D.  F.  G.  67,  in 
the  Coptic  and  Ethiopio  versions,  and  by  some  of  the  Latin  Fathers.  Mill, 
Griesbach,  Lachmann,  Tischendorf,  and  others,  leave  them  out.  The  sense 
remains  the  same:  "I  shall  come  in  the  fulness  of  the  blessing  of  Christ." 


698  ROMANS  XV.  30,  31. 

The  fulness  of  the  blessing^  means  the  abundant  blessing.  Paul 
was  persuaded  that  God,  who  had  so  richly  crowned  his  labours 
in  other  places,  would  cause  his  visit  to  Rome  to  be  attended  by 
those  abundant  blessings  which  the  gospel  of  Christ  is  adapted 
to  produce.  He  had,  in  chap.  i.  11,  expressed  his  desire  to  visit 
the  Roman  Christians,  that  he  might  impart  unto  them  some 
spiritual  gift,  to  the  end  that  they  might  be  established. 

Verse  80.  Now  I  beseech  you^  brethren,  for  our  Lord  JesuB 
Christ's  sake,  and  for  the  love  of  the  Spirit,  that  ye  strive 
together  with  me  in  your  prayers  to  Grod  for  me.  As  the  apos- 
tle was  not  immediately  to  see  them,  and  knew  that  he  would, 
in  the  meantime,  be  exposed  to  many  dangers,  he  earnestly 
begged  them  to  aid  him  with  their  prayers.  He  enforces  this 
request  by  the  tenderest  considerations ;  for  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ's  sake,  i.  e.,  out  of  regard  to  the  Lord  Jesus;  'whatever 
regard  you  have  for  him,  and  whatever  desire  to  see  his  cause 
prosper,  in  which  I  am  engaged,  let  it  induce  you  to  pray  for 
me.'  And  for  the  love  of  the  Spirit,  i.  e.,  'for  that  love  of  which 
the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  author,  and  by  which  he  binds  the  hearts 
of  Christians  together,  I  beseech  you,'  &c.  He  appeals,  there- 
fore, not  only  to  their  love  of  Christ,  but  to  their  love  for  him- 
self as  a  fellow  Christian.  That  ye  strive  together  with  me 
(oovaycDviaaad^ai  fioc,)  i.  e.,  '  that  ye  aid  me  in  my  conflict,  by 
taking  part  in  it.'     This  they  were  to  do  by  their  prayers. 

Verse  31.  That  I  may  be  delivered  from  them  that  do  not 
believe  in  Judea.  There  are  three  objects  for  which  he  particu- 
larly wished  them  to  pray ;  his  safety,  the  successful  issue  of 
his  mission,  and  that  he  might  come  to  them  with  joy.  How 
much  reason  Paul  had  to  dread  the  violence  of  the  unbelieving 
Jews  is  evident  from  the  history  given  of  this  visit  to  Jerusa- 
lem, in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  They  endeavoured  to  destroy 
his  life,  accused  him  to  the  Roman  governor,  and  eifected  his 
imprisonment  for  two  years  in  Cesarea,  whence  he  was  sent  in 
chains  to  Rome.  Nor  were  his  apprehensions  confined  to  the 
unbelieving  Jews ;  he  knew  that  even  the  Christians  there,  from 
their  narrow-minded  prejudices  against  him  as  a  preacher  to 
the  Gentiles,  and  as  the  advocate  of  the  liberty  of  Christians 
from  the  yoke  of  the  Mosaic  law,  were  greatly  embittered 
against  him.     He,  therefore,  begs  the  Roman  believers  to  pray 


ROMANS  XV.  32,  33.  699 

that  the  service  which  (he  had)  for  Jerusalem  might  he  accepted 
of  the  saints.  The  words  service  which  I  have,  &c.,  (^  dcaxovla 
fjtou  ^  e«c  ''hpooaaXijp)  means  the  contribution  which  I  carry  to 
Jerusalem;  see  the  nse  of  this  word  (diaxovca)  in  2  Cor.  viii.  4, 
ix.  1,  13.  The  ordinary  sense  of  dcaxouta,  service,  however, 
may  be  retained.  Paul  desired  that  the  work  of  love  on  which 
he  was  to  go  to  Jerusalem  might  be  favourably  received  by  the 
Christians  of  that  city.  Paul  laboured  for  those  whom  he 
knew  regarded  him  with  little  favour;  he  calls  them  saints, 
recognises  their  Christian  character,  notwithstanding  their 
unkindness,  and  urges  his  brethren  to  pray  that  they  might  be 
willing  to  accept  of  kindness  at  his  hands. 

Verse  32.  That  I  may  come  unto  you  with  joy  hy  the  will 
of  Crod,  and  that  I  may  with  you  he  refreshed.  These  words 
may  depend  upon  the  former  part  of  the  preceding  verse,  'Pray 
that  I  may  come;'  or,  upon  the  latter  part,  'Pray  that  I  may 
be  delivered  from  the  Jews,  and  my  contributions  be  accepted, 
so  that  I  may  come  with  joy,  &c.'  By  the  will  of  G-od,  i.  e., 
by  the  permission  and  favour  of  God.  Instead  of  deou,  the 
MS.  B.  has  KupioL)  '' hjaou;  D.*  E.  F.  G.  the  Italic  version,  read 
Xpcazob  ^ hjaou;  most  editors,  however,  retain  the  common  text. 
Paul  seemed  to  look  forward  to  his  interview  with  the  Chris- 
tians at  Rome,  as  a 'season  of  relief  from  conflict  and  labour. 
In  Jerusalem  he  was  beset  by  unbelieving  Jews,  and  harrassed 
by  Judaizing  Christians ;  in  most  other  places  he  was  burdened 
with  the  care  of  the  churches ;  but  at  Rome,  which  he  looked 
upon  as  a  resting-place,  rather  than  a  field  of  labour,  he  hoped 
to  gather  strength  for  the  prosecution  of  his  apostolic  labours 
in  still  more  distant  lands. 

Verse  33.  Now  the  peace  of  Grod  be  with  you  all.  As  he 
begged  them  to  pray  for  him,  so  he  prays  for  them.  It  is 
a  prayer  of  one  petition;  so  full  of  meaning,  however,  that 
no  other  need  be  added.  The  peace  of  Grod,  that  peace  which 
God  gives,  includes  all  the  mercies  necessary  for  the  perfect 
blessedness  of  the  soul. 

DOCTRINE. 

1.  The  sacred  Scriptures  are  designed  for  men  in  all  ages  of 
the  world,  and  are  the  great  source  of  religious  knowledge  and 
consolation,  ver.  4. 


700  ROMANS  XV.  1—33. 

2.  The  moral  excellences  which  we  are  justly  required  to 
attain,  and  the  consolations  which  we  are  commanded  to  seek 
in  the  use  of  appropriate  means,  are  still  the  gifts  of  God. 
There  is,  therefore,  no  inconsistency  between  the  doctrines  of 
free  agency  and  dependence,  vs.  5,  18. 

3.  Those  are  to  be  received  and  treated  as  Christians  whom 
Christ  himself  has  received.  Men  have  no  right  to  make  terms 
of  communion  which  Christ  has  not  made,  ver.  7. 

4.  There  is  no  distinction,  under  the  gospel,  between  the  Jew 
and  Gentile;  Christ  has  received  both  classes  upon  the  same 
terms  and  to  the  same  privileges,  vs.  8 — 12. 

5.  The  quotation  of  the  predictions  of  the  Old  Testament  by 
the  sacred  writers  of  the  New,  and  the  application  of  them  in 
proof  of  their  doctrines,  involves  an  acknowledgment  of  the 
divine  authority  of  the  ancient  prophets.  And  as  these  pre- 
dictions are  quoted  from  the  volume  which  the  Jews  recognise 
as  their  Bible,  or  the  word  of  God,  it  is  evident  that  the  apos- 
tles believed  in  the  inspiration  of  all  the  books  included  in  the 
sacred  canon  by  the  Jews,  vs.  9 — 12. 

6.  Christian  ministers  are  not  priests,  i.  e.,  they  are  not 
appointed  to  "offer  gifts  and  sacrifices  for  sins."  It  is  no  part 
of  their  work  to  make  atonement  for  the  people ;  this  Christ 
has  done  by  the  one  offering  up  of  himself,  whereby  he  has  for 
ever  perfected  them  that  are  sanctified,  ver.  16.  A  priest, 
according  to  the  Scriptures,  is  one  appointed  for  men  who  have 
not  liberty  of  access  to  God,  to  draw  nigh  to  him  in  their 
behalf,  and  to  offer  both  gifts  and  sacrifices  for  sin.  In  this 
sense  Christ  is  our  only  Priest.  The  priesthood  of  believers 
consists  in  their  having  (through  Christ)  liberty  of  access  unto 
God,  and  offering  themselves  and  their  services  as  a  living 
sacrifice  unto  him.  In  one  aspect,  the  fundamental  error  of 
the  church  of  Rome  is  the  doctrine  that  Christian  ministers  are 
priests.  This  assumes  that  sinners  cannot  come  to  God  through 
Christ,  and  that  it  is  only  through  the  intervention  of  the 
priests  men  can  be  made  partakers  of  the  benefits  of  redemp- 
tion. This  is  to  put  the  keys  of  heaven  into  the  hands  of 
priests.  It  is  to  turn  men  from  Christ  to  those  who  cannot 
save. 

7.  The  truth  of  the  gospel  has  been  confirmed  by  God,  by 


ROMANS  XV.  1—33.  701 

signs  and  wonders,  and  by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
Infidelity,  therefore,  is  a  disbelief  of  the  testimony  of  God. 
When  God  has  given  satisfactory  evidence  of  the  mission  of  his 
servants,  the  sin  of  unbelief  is  not  relieved  by  the  denial  that 
the  evidence  is  satisfactory.  If  the  gospel  is  true,  therefore, 
infidelity  will  be  found  not  merely  to  be  a  mistake,  but  a  crime, 
ver.  19. 

8.  The  success  of  a  minister  in  winning  souls  to  Christ  may 
be  fairly  appealed  to  as  evidence  that  he  preaches  the  truth. 
It  is,  when  clearly  ascertained,  as  decisive  an  evidence  as  the 
performance  of  a  miracle ;  because  it  is  as  really  the  result  of  a 
divine  agency.  This,  however,  like  all  other  evidence,  to  be 
of  any  value,  must  be  carefully  examined  and  faithfully  applied. 
The  success  may  be  real,  and  the  evidence  decisive,  but  it  may 
be  applied  improperly.  The  same  man  may  preach  (and  doubt- 
less every  uninspired  man  does  preach)  both  truth  and  error ; 
God  may  sanction  and  bless  the  truth,  and  men  may  appeal  to 
this  blessing  in  support  of  the  error.  This  is  often  done.  Suc- 
cess therefore  is  of  itself  a  very  difficult  test  for  us  to  apply, 
and  must  ever  be  held  subject  to  the  authority  of  the  Scrip- 
tures. Nothing  can  prove  that  to  be  true  which  the  Bible  pro- 
nounces to  be  false,  vs.  18,  19. 

9.  Prayer  (and  even  intercessory  prayer)  has  a  real  and 
important  efficacy ;  not  merely  in  its  influence  on  the  mind  of 
him  who  offers  it,  but  also  in  securing  the  blessings  for  which 
we  pray.  Paul  directed  the  Roman  Christians  to  pray  for  the 
exercise  of  the  divine  providence  in  protecting  him  from  danger, 
and  for  the  Holy  Spirit  to  influence  the  minds  of  the  brethren 
in  Jerusalem.  This  he  would  not  have  done,  were  such  peti- 
tions of  no  avail,  vs.  30,  31. 

REMARKS. 

1.  The  duty  of  a  disinterested  and  kind  regard  to  others,  in 
the  exercise  of  our  Christian  liberty,  is  one  of  the  leading  topics 
of  this,  as  it  is  of  the  preceding  chapter,  vs.  1 — 13. 

2.  The  desire  to  please  others  should  be  wisely  directed,  and 
spring  from  right  motives.  We  should  not  please  them  to  their 
own  injury,  nor  from  the  wish  to  secure  their  favour ;  but  for 
their  good,  that  they  may  be  edified,  ver.  2. 


702  ROMANS  XV.  1—33. 

3.  The  character  and  conduct  of  Jesus  Christ  are  at  once  the 

most  perfect  model  of  excellence  and  the  most  persuasive  motive 
to  obedience.  The  dignity  of  his  person,  the  greatness  of  his 
condescension,  the  severity  of  his  sufferings,  the  fervour  of  his 
love  towards  us,  all  combine  to  render  his  example  effective  in 
humbling  us,  in  view  of  our  own  short-comings,  and  in  exciting 
us  to  walk  even  as  he  walked,  vs.  4 — 13. 

4.  We  should  constantly  resort  to  the  Scriptures  for  instruc- 
tion and  consolation.  They  were  written  for  this  purpose ;  and 
we  have  no  right  to  expect  these  blessings  unless  we  use  the 
means  appointed  for  their  attainment.  As  God,  however,  by 
the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  works  all  good  in  us,  we  should 
rely  neither  on  the  excellence  of  the  means,  nor  the  vigour  and 
diligence  of  our  own  exertions,  but  on  his  blessing,  which  is  to 
be  sought  by  prayer,  vs.  4,  5,  18. 

5.  The  dissensions  of  Christians  are  dishonourable  to  God. 
They  must  be  of  one  mind,  i.  e.,  sincerely  and  affectionately 
united,  if  they  would  glorify  their  Father  in  heaven,  vs.  5 — 7. 

6.  A  monitor  or  instructor  should  be  full  of  goodness  and 
knowledge.  The  human  heart  resists  censoriousness,  pride,  and 
ill  feeling,  in  an  admonisher ;  and  is  thrown  into  such  a  state, 
by  the  exhibition  of  these  evil  dispositions,  that  the  truth  is 
little  likely  to  do  it  any  good.  As  oil  poured  on  water  smooths 
its  surface,  and  renders  it  transparent,  so  does  kindness  calm 
the  minds  of  men,  and  prepare  them  for  the  ready  entrance 
of  the  truth.  Besides  these  qualifications,  he  who  admonishes 
others  should  be  entitled  thus  to  act.  It  is  not  necessary  that 
this  title  should  rest  on  his  official  station;  but  there  should 
be  superiority  of  some  kind — of  age,  excellence,  or  know- 
ledge— to  give  his  admonitions  due  effect.  Paul's  peculiar 
modesty,  humility,  and  mildness,  should  serve  as  an  example 
to  us,  vs.  14,  15. 

7.  We  should  be  careful  not  to  build  improperly  on  another 
man's  foundation.  Pastors  and  teachers  must  of  course  preach 
Christ  where  he  had  before  been  known ;  but  they  should  not 
appropriate  to  themselves  the  results  of  the  labours  of  others, 
or  boast  of  things  which  Christ  has  not  wrought  by  them.  The 
man  who  reaps  the  harvest,  is  not  always  he  who  sowed  the 
seed.     One  plants,  and  another  waters,  but  God   giveth  the 


ROMANS  XVI.  1.  703 

increase.    So  then  neither  is  he  that  planteth  any  thing,  neither 
he  that  watereth,  but  God  that  giveth  the  increase,  vs.  19,  20. 

8.  It  is  the  duty  of  those  who  have  the  means,  to  contribute 
to  the  necessities  of  others,  and  especially  to  the  wants  of  those 
from  whom  they  themselves  have  received  good,  vs.  26,  27. 

9.  The  fact  that  men  are  prejudiced  against  us,  is  no  reason 
why  we  should  not  do  them  good.  The  Jewish  Christians  were 
ready  to  denounce  Paul,  and  to  cast  out  his  name  as  evil ;  yet 
he  collected  contributions  for  them,  and  was  very  solicitous  that 
they  should  accept  of  his  services,  ver.  31. 

10.  Danger  is  neither  to  be  courted  nor  fled  from;  but 
encountered  with  humble  trust  in  God,  ver.  31. 

11.  We  should  pray  for  others  in  such  a  way  as  really  to 
enter  into  their  trials  and  conflicts ;  and  believe  that  our 
prayers,  when  sincere,  are  a  real  and  great  assistance  to  them. 
It  is  a  great  blessing  to  have  an  interest  in  the  prayers  of  the 
righteous. 


CHAPTER    XVI. 

CONTENTS. 
In  this  concluding  chapter,  Paul  first  commends  to  the  church 
at  Rome  the  deaconess  Phebe,  vs.  1,  2.  He  then  sends  his 
salutations  to  many  members  of  the  church,  and  other  Chris- 
tians who  were  then  at  Rome,  vs.  3 — 16.  He  earnestly  exhorts 
his  brethren  to  avoid  those  who  cause  contentions ;  and  after 
commending  their  obedience,  he  prays  for  God's  blessing  upon 
them,  vs.  17 — 21.  Salutations  from  the  apostle's  companions, 
vs.  22 — 24.     The  concluding  doxology,  vs.  25—27. 

ROMANS  XVI.  1—27. 

COMMENTARY. 

Verse  1.  /  commend  unto  you  Phebe  our  sister,  which  is  a 

servant  of  the   church   which   is   at    Cenchrea.     Phebe,  from 

Phoebus,  (Apollo.)     The  early  Christians  retained  their  names, 

although  they  were   derived  from  the  names   of  false  gods, 


704  ROMANS  XVI.  2. 

because  they  had  lost  all  religious  significance  and  reference. 
In  like  manner  we  retain  the  use  of  the  names  of  the  days  of 
the  week,  without  ever  thinking  of  their  derivation.  Corinth, 
being  situated  on  a  narrow  isthmus,  had  two  ports,  one  towards 
Europe,  and  the  other  towards  Asia.  The  latter  was  called 
Cenchrea,  where  a  church  had  been  organized,  of  which  Phebe 
was  a  servant  [dcdyovo^,)  i.  e.,  deaconess.  It  appears  that  in  the 
apostolic  church,  elderly  females  were  selected  to  attend  upon 
the  poor  and  sick  of  their  own  sex.  Many  ecclesiastical  writers 
suppose  there  were  two  classes  of  these  female  officers;  the  one 
(7Vpsaj3'jTid£(:,  corresponding  in  some  measure  in  their  duties  to 
the  elders,)  having  the  oversight  of  the  conduct  of  the  younger 
female  Christians ;  and  the  other,  whose  duty  was  to  attend  to 
the  sick  and  the  poor.  See  Suicer's  Thesaurus,  under  the 
word  oidxouo^;  Bingham's  Ecclesiastical  Antiquities,  11,  12; 
Augusti's  DenkwUrdigkeiten  der  christl.  Archaologie. 

Verse  2.  That  ye  receive  her  in  the  Lord.  The  words  in 
the  Lord,  may  be  connected  either  with  receive,  'receive  her  in 
a  religious  manner,  and  from  religious  motives;'  or  with  the 
pronoun,  her  in  the  Lord,  her  as  a  Christian.  The  apostle 
presents  two  considerations  to  enforce  this  exhortation;  first, 
regard  for  their  Christian  character ;  and,  secondly,  the  service 
which  Phebe  had  rendered  to  others.  As  becometh  saints;  this 
expression  at  once  describes  the  manner  in  which  they  ought  to 
receive  her,  and  suggests  the  motive  for  so  doing.  The  words 
d^j'wc  '^(i>v  ^yicou  may  mean,  '  as  it  becomes  Christians  to  receive 
their  brethren,'  or,  'sicut  sanctos  excipi  oportet,  as  saints  ought 
to  be  received.'  In  the  former  case,  6.Yio)v  (saints)  are  those 
who  received,  and  in  the  latter,  those  who  are  received.  And 
that  ye  assist  her  in  whatsoever  business  she  hath  need  of  you. 
They  were  not  only  to  receive  her  with  courtesy  and  affection, 
but  to  aid  her  in  any  way  in  which  she  required  their  assistance. 
The  words  {iv  w  du  npdjiJLaTc)  in  whatsoever  business,  are  to  be 
taken  very  generally,  in  whatever  matter,  or  in  whatever 
respect.  For  she  hath  been  a  succourer  of  many,  avid  of 
myself  also.  The  word  (jrpoardTK;)  succourer,  means  a  pat- 
roness, a  benefactor;  it  is  a  highly  honorable  title.  As  she  had 
so  frequently  aided  others,  it  was  but  reasonable  that  she 
should  be  assisted. 


ROMANS  XVI.  3—5.  705 

Verse  3.  Salute  Priscilla*  and  Aquila,  my  helpers  in  Christ 
Jesus,  i.  e.,  my  fellow  labourers  in  the  promotion  of  the  gospel. 
Priscilla  is  the  diminutive  form  of  Prisca ;  compare  Livia  and 
Livilla,  Drusa  and  Drusilla,  Quinta  and  Quintilla,  Secunda  and 
Secundilla.  G-rotius.  Aquila  and  Priscilla  are  mentioned  in 
Acts  xviii.  2,  as  having  left  Rome  in  consequence  of  the  edict 
of  Claudius.  After  remaining  at  Ephesus  a  long  time,  it 
seems  that  they  had  returned  to  Rome,  and  were  there  when 
Paul  wrote  this  letter;  Acts  xviii.  18,  26,  1  Cor.  xvi.  19, 
2  Tim.  iv.  19. 

Verse  4.  Who  have  for  my  life  laid  down  their  own  nechsy 
i.  e.,  they  exposed  themselves  to  imminent  peril  to  save  me. 
On  what  occasion  this  was  done,  is  not  recorded.  Unto  whom 
not  only  I  give  thanks,  but  also  all  the  churches  of  the  G-entiles. 
Their  courageous  and  disinterested  conduct  must  have  been 
generally  known,  and  called  forth  the  grateful  acknowledg- 
ments of  all  the  churches  interested  in  the  preservation  of  a  life 
so  precious  as  that  of  the  apostle. 

Verse  5.  The  church  that  is  in  their  house.  These  words 
(xat  TTjv  xar  olxov  ahxS>v  ixxXi^aiau)  are  understood,  by  many  of 
the  Greek  and  modern  commentators,  to  mean  their  Christian 
family;  so  Calvin,  Flatt,  Koppe,  Tholuck,  &c.  The  most 
common  and  natural  interpretation  is,  'the  church  which  is 
accustomed  to  assemble  in  their  house;'  see  1  Cor.  xvi.  19, 
where  this  same  expression  occurs  in  reference  to  Aquila  and 
Priscilla.  It  is  probable  that,  from  his  occupation  as  tent- 
maker,  he  had  better  accommodations  for  the  meetings  of  the 
church  than  most  other  Christians. 

Salute  my  well  beloved  Epenetus,  who  is  the  Jirstfruits  of 
Achaia'\  unto  Christ.  This  passage  is  not  irreconcileable  with 
1  Cor.  xvi.  15,  "  Ye  know  the  household  of  Stephanas,  that  it 
is  the  first-fruits  of  Achaia;"  for  Epenetus  may  have  belonged 

*  Instead  of  ngiVx/xAsiv,  U^iitk*y  is  read  in  the  MSS.  A.  C.  D.  E.  F.  G.,  and 
in  many  codd.  minusc;  and  this  reading  is  adopted  in  the  editions  of  Bengel, 
Mill,  Wetstein,  Griesbach,  Knapp,  Lachmann. 

f  Ao-kc  is  read  in  MSS.  A.  C.  D.  E.  F.  G.  6,  67;  and  in  the  Coptic,  Ethiopic, 
and  Latin  versions.  Mill,  Bengel,  Griesbach,  Knapp,  and  Lachmann,  adopt 
that  reading. 

45 


706  ROMANS  XVI.  6,  7. 

to  this  family.  So  many  of  the  oldest  MSS.  and  versions,  how- 
ever, read  Asia^  instead  of  Aehaia,  in  this  verse,  that  the  great 
majority  of  editors  have  adopted  that  reading.  This,  of  course, 
removes  even  the  appearance  of  contradiction. 

Verses  6,  7.  G-reet  Mary,  who  bestowed  much  labour  upon 
us.  Salute  Andronicus  and  Junia,  my  hinsmen  and  my  fellow- 
prisoners.  Instead  of  e/c  '^A'^C?  some  of  the  older  MSS.  read 
p«f  ^//ac,  and  others  kv  bfiiv.  The  common  text  is,  however, 
retained  in  the  latest  editions,  and  is  better  suited  to  the  con- 
text, as  the  assiduous  service  of  Mary,  rendered  to  the  apostle, 
is  a  more  natural  reason  of  his  salutation,  than  that  she  had 
been  serviceable  to  the  Roman  Christians.  It  is  very  doubtful 
whether  Junia  be  the  name  of  a  man  or  of  a  woman,  as  the 
form  in  which  it  occurs  (^looviav)  admits  of  either  explanation. 
If  a  man's  name,  it  is  Junias ;  if  a  woman's,  it  is  Junia.  It  is 
commonly  taken  as  a  female  name,  and  the  person  intended  is 
supposed  to  have  been  the  wife  or  sister  of  Andronicus.  My 
kinsmen,  i.  e.,  relatives,  and  not  merely  of  the  same  nation ;  at 
least  there  seems  no  suflficient  reason  for  taking  the  word  in 
this  latter  general  sense.  Fellow-prisoners.  Paul,  in  2  Cor. 
xi.  23,  when  enumerating  his  labours,  says,  "  In  stripes  above 
measure,  in  prisons  more  frequent,  in  deaths  oft,"  &c.  He  was, 
often  in  bonds,  (Clemens  Romanus,  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Cor- 
inthians, sect.  5,  says  seven  times,)  he  may,  therefore,  have 
had  numerous  fellow-prisoners.  Who  are  of  note  among  the 
apostles;  imar^fxai  iv  ro7c  diroaToXocc.  This  may  mean  either 
they  were  distinguished  apostles,  or  they  were  highly  respected 
by  the  apostles.  The  latter  is  most  probably  the  correct  inter- 
pretation ;  because  the  word  apostle,  unless  connected  with  some 
other  word,  as  in  the  phrase,  "messengers  (apostles)  of  the 
churches,"  is  very  rarely,  if  ever,  applied  in  the  New  Testament 
to  any  other  than  the  original  messengers  of  Jesus  Christ.  It 
is  never  used  in  Paul's  writings,  except  in  its  strict  official 
sense.  The  word  has  a  fixed  meaning,  from  which  we  should 
not  depart  without  special  reason.  Besides,  the  article  (iv  rolz 
d-TzoaroXoci;,)  among  the  apostles,  seems  to  point  out  the  definite 
well-known  class  of  persons  almost  exclusively  so  called.  The 
passage  is  so  understood  by  Koppe  {magna  eorum  fama  est 
apud  apostolos,)  Flatt,  Bloomfield,  Meyer,  Philippi,  and   the 


ROMANS  XVI.  8—15.  707 

majority  of  commentators.     Who  also  were  in  Christ  before  me, 
i.  e.,  who  were  Christians  before  me. 

Verses  8 — 15.  My  beloved  in  the  Lord.  The  preposition  in 
(^v,)  here,  as  frequently  elsewhere,  points  out  the  relation  or 
respect  in  which  the  word  to  which  it  refers  is  to  be  under- 
stood ;  brother  beloved,  both  in  the  flesh  and  in  the  Lord  (Phile- 
mon, ver.  16,)  both  in  reference  to  our  external  relations,  and 
our  relation  to  the  Lord.  And  thus  in  the  following,  ver.  9,  our 
helper  in  Christ,  i.  e.,  as  it  regards  Christ;  ver.  10,  approved 
in  Christ,  i.  e.,  in  his  relation  to  Christ;  an  approved  or  tried 
Christian ;  ver.  12,  who  labour  in  the  Lord;  and,  which  laboured 
much  in  the  Lord,  i.  e.,  who,  as  it  regards  the  Lord,  laboured 
much;  it  was  a  Christian  or  religious  service.  The  names, 
Tryphena,  Tryphosa,  and  Persis,  are  all  feminine.  The  last  is 
commonly  supposed  to  indicate  the  native  country  of  the  person 
who  bore  it,  as  it  was  not  unusual  to  name  persons  from  the 
place  of  their  origin,  as  Mysa,  Syria,  Lydia,  Andria,  &c.;  such 
names,  however,  soon  became  common,  and  were  given  without 
any  reference  to  the  birth-place  of  those  who  received  them. 
Chosen  in  the  Lord,  i.  e.,  not  one  chosen  by  the  Lord;  chosen, 
(i.  e.,  approved,  precious;  see  1  Peter  ii.  4,)  in  his  relation  to 
the  Lord,  as  a  Christian.  It  is  not  merely  elect  in  Christ,  that 
is,  chosen  to  eternal  life,  for  this  could  be  said  of  every  Chris- 
tian ;  but  Rufus  is  here  designated  as  a  chosen  man,  as  a  dis- 
tinguished Christian.  It  is  worth  noticing,  that  at  Rome,  as  at 
Corinth,  few  of  the  great  or  learned  seem  to  have  been  called. 
These  salutations  are  all  addressed  to  men  not  distinguished 
for  their  rank  or  official  dignity.  Mylius,  as  quoted  by  Calov, 
says:  "Notanda  hie  fidelium  istorum  conditio:  nemo  hie  nomi- 
natur  consul,  nemo  quaestor  aut  dictator  insignitur,  minime 
omnium  episcopatuum  et  cardinalatuum  dignitate  hie  perso- 
nant:  sed  operarum,  laborum,  captivitate  titulis  plerique 
notantur.  Ita  verum  etiam  in  Romana  ecclesia  fuit  olim, 
quod  apostolus  scribit,  non  multi  potentes,  non  multi  nobiles, 
sed  stulta  mundi  electa  sunt  a  Deo.  Papatus  autem  Csesarei, 
qualis  adjuvante  diabolo,  in  perniciem  religionis,  posteris 
saeculis  Romae  involuit,  ne  umbra  quidem  apostoloruta  aetate 
istic  fuit:  tantum  abest,  ut  ille  originem  ab  apostolis  ipsis 
traxerit." 


708  ROMANS  XVI.  16,  IT. 

Verse  16.  Salute  one  another  with  a  holy  kiss.  Reference 
to  this  custom  is  made  also  in  1  Cor.  xvi.  20,  1  Thess.  v.  26, 
1  Peter  v.  14.  It  is  supposed  to  have  been  of  oriental  origin, 
and  continued  for  a  long  time  in  the  early  churches;*  after 
prayer,  and  especially  before  the  celebration  of  the  Lord's 
Supper,  the  brethren  saluting  in  this  way  the  brethren,  and  the 
sisters  the  sisters.  This  salutation  was  expressive  of  mutual 
affection  and  equality  before  God. 

Verse  17.  I^ow  I  beseech  you,  brethren,  marh  them  which 
cause  divisions  and  offences  contrary  to  the  doctrine  which  ye 
have  learned,  and  avoid  them.  While  he  urges  them  to  the 
kind  reception  of  all  faithful  ministers  and  Christians,  he 
enjoins  upon  them  to  have  nothing  to  do  with  those  who  cause 
divisions  and  offences.  There  were  probably  two  evils  in  the 
apostle's  mind  when  he  wrote  this  passage ;  the  divisions  occa- 
sioned by  erroneous  doctrines,  and  the  offences  or  scandals 
occasioned  by  the  evil  conduct  of  the  false  teachers.  Almost 
all  the  forms  of  error  which  distracted  the  early  church,  were 
intimately  connected  with  practical  evils  of  a  moral  character. 
This  was  the  case  to  a  certain  extent  with  the  Judaizers ;  who 
not  only  disturbed  the  church  by  insisting  on  the  observance 
of  the  Mosaic  law,  but  also  pressed  some  of  their  doctrines  to 
an  immoral  extreme;  see  1  Cor.  v.  1 — 5.  It  was  still  more 
obviously  the  case  with  those  errorists,  infected  with  a  false 
philosophy,  who  are  described  in  Col.  ii.  10 — 23,  1  Tim. 
iv.  1 — 8.  These  evils  were  equally  opposed  to  the  doctrines 
taught  by  the  apostle.  Those  who  caused  these  dissensions, 
Paul  commands  Christians,  first,  to  mark  [ffxonetu,)  i.  e.,  to 
notice  carefully,  and  not  allow  them  to  pursue  their  corrupting 

*  Justin  Apol.  II.,  dxxx'xouc  (fixii/noLri  aa-?ra.^o/ji.iB-it  Trava-a/Aiioi  tuv  (u^Zv;  'After 
prayers  we  salute  one  another  with  a  kiss.'  Tertullian  de  Oratione:  "Quae 
oratio  cum  divortio  sancti  osculi  Integra?  Quern  omnino  ofBcium  facientem 
impedit  pax?  Quale  sacrificium  sine  pace  receditur?"  By  peace,  is  here 
intended  the  kiss  of  peace,  for  he  had  before  said,  ' '  Cum  fratribus  subtrahant 
osculum  pacis,  quod  est  signaculum  orationis."  In  the  Apostolic  Constitu- 
tions, it  is  said  (L.  2,  c.  57,)  "Then  let  the  men  apart,  and  the  women  apart, 
salute  each  other  with  a  kiss  in  the  Lord."  Origen  says,  on  this  verse, 
"  From  this  passage  the  custom  was  delivered  to  the  churches,  that  after 
prayers  the  brethren  should  salute  one  another  with  a  kiss." — See  Grotiua 
and  Whitby. 


ROMANS  XVI.  18,  19.  709 

course  unheeded;  and,  secondly,  to  avoid,  i.  e.,  to  break  off 
connection  with  them. 

Vekse  18.  For  they  that  are  such  serve  not  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  hut  their  own  belli/;  and  by  good  words  and  fair  speeches 
deceive  the  hearts  of  the  simple.  These  men  are  to  be  avoided, 
because  they  are  wicked  and  injurious.  The  description  here 
given  is  applicable,  in  a  great  degree,  to  errorists  in  all  ages. 
They  are  not  actuated  by  zeal  for  the  Lord  Jesus ;  they  are 
selfish,  if  not  sensual ;  and  they  are  plausible  and  deceitful. 
Compare  Phil.  iii.  18,  19,  2  Tim.  iii.  5,  6.  The  words 
[Y^pTjaroXoyia  and  euXoyca,  blandiloquentia  et  assentatio)  rendered 
good  words  and  fair  speeches,  do  not  in  this  connection  materi- 
ally diflfer.  They  express  that  plausible  and  flattering  address 
by  which  false  teachers  are  wont  to  secure  an  influence  over  the 
simple.  The  word  (dxaxot:)  simple,  signifies  not  merely  inno- 
cent, but  unwary,  he  who  is  liable  to  deception.  (Prov.  xiv. 
15,  dxaxo^  mareoe:  navzi  Xoyw,  the  simple  believes  every  thing.) 

Verse  19.  For  your  obedience  is  come  abroad  unto  all  men, 
&c.  This  clause  admits  of  two  interpretations ;  the  word  obe- 
dience may  express  either  their  obedience  to  the  gospel,  their 
faith,  (see  chap.  i.  8,)  or  their  obedient  disposition,  their  readi- 
ness to  follow  the  instructions  of  their  religious  teachers.  If 
the  former  meaning  be  adopted,  the  sense  of  the  passage  is 
this,  'Ye  ought  to  be  on  your  guard  against  these  false 
teachers,  for  since  your  character  is  so  high,  your  faith  being 
every  where  spoken  of,  it  would  be  a  great  disgrace  and  evil  to 
be  led  astray  by  them.'  If  the  latter  meaning  be  taken,  the 
sense  is,  '  It  is  the  more  necessary  that  you  should  be  on  your 
guard  against  these  false  teachers,  because  your  ready  obedience 
to  your  divine  teachers  is  so  great  and  generally  known.  This, 
in  itself,  is  commendable,  but  I  would  that  you  joined  prudence 
with  your  docility.'  This  latter  view  is,  on  account  of  the 
concluding  part  of  the  verse,  most  probably  the  correct  one ; 
see  2  Cor.  x.  6,  Phil.  v.  21. 

I  am  glad,  therefore,  on  your  behalf',  but  yet  I  would  have 
you  wise  unto  that  which  is  good,  and  simple  concerning  evil. 
That  is,  '  Simplicity  (an  unsuspecting  docility)  is  indeed  good ; 
but  I  would  have  you  not  only  simple,  but  prudent.     You  must 


710  ROMANS  XVI.  20—24. 

not  only  avoid  doing  evil,  but  be  careful  that  you  do  not  suffer 
evil.  Grotius'  explanation  is  peculiarly  happy,  ita  prudentes 
ut  non  fallamini;  ita  honi  ut  non  fallatis;  '  too  good  to  deceive, 
too  wise  to  be  deceived.'  The  word  [dxipaio^  from  a  et  xepdco) 
simple,  means  unmixed,  pure^  and  then  harmless.  '  Wise  as  to 
(ef'c)  good,  but  simple  as  to  evil;'  or,  'wise  so  that  good  may 
result,  and  simple  so  that  evil  may  not  be  done.'  This 
latter  is  probably  the  meaning.  Paul  would  have  them  so 
wise  as  to  know  how  to  take  care  of  themselves;  and  yet 
harmless. 

Verse  20.  And  the  Crod  of  peace  shall  bruise  Satan  under 
your  feet  shortly.  The  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  he  with 
you.  Amen.  As  the  evils  produced  by  the  false  teachers  were 
divisions  and  scandals,  the  apostle,  in  giving  them  the  assurance 
of  the  effectual  aid  of  God,  calls  him  the  G^od  of  peace,  i.  e., 
God  who  is  the  author  of  peace  in  the  comprehensive  scriptural 
sense  of  that  term.  Shall  bruise  is  not  a  prayer,  but  a  consola- 
tory declaration  that  Satan  should  be  trodden  under  foot.  As 
Satan  is  constantly  represented  as  "  working  in  the  children  of 
disobedience,"  the  evil  done  by  them  is  sometimes  referred  to 
him  as  the  instigator,  and  sometimes  to  the  immediate  agents 
who  are  his  willing  instruments.  The  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  he  with  you.  This  is  a  prayer  for  the  favour  and  aid  of 
Christ,  and  of  course  is  an  act  of  worship,  and  a  recognition  of 
the  Saviour's  divinity. 

Verse  21 — 24.  These  verses  contain  the  salutations  of  the 
apostle's  companions  to  the  Roman  Christians,  and  a  repetition 
of  the  prayer  just  mentioned.  /  Tertiua,  who  wrote  this  epistle, 
salute  you  in  the  Lord.  Tertius  was  Paul's  amanuensis.  The 
apostle  seldom  wrote  his  epistles  with  his  own  hand;  hence  he 
refers  to  the  fact  of  having  himself  written  the  letter  to  the 
Galatians  as  something  unusual ;  Gal.  vi.  11,  "  Ye  see  how  large 
a  letter  I  have  written  unto  you  with  my  own  hand."  In  order 
to  authenticate  his  epistles,  he  generally  wrote  himself  the  salu- 
tation or  benediction  at  the  close;  1  Cor.  xvi.  21,  "The  salu- 
tation of  me  Paul,  with  mine  own  hand ;"  2  Thess.  iii.  17,  "  The 
salutation  of  Paul  with  mine  own  hand ;  which  is  the  token  in 
every  epistle:  so  I  write."     Grains  mine  host,  and  of  the  whole 


ROMANS  XVI.  25—27:  711 

church,  i.  e.,  Gaius,  who  not  only  entertains  me,  but  Christians 
generally ;  or,  in  whose  house  the  congregation  is  accustomed 
to  assemble.  JErastus  the  chamberlain  of  the  city,  {oixovofxoQ) 
the  treasurer  of  the  city,  the  quaestor. 

Verses  25,  27.  These  verses  contain  the  concluding  dox- 
ology.  Now  to  him  that  is  of  power  to  establish  you  according 
to  my  gospel  and  the  preaching  of  Jesus  Christ,  according  to  the 
revelation  of  the  mystery,  &c.  As  the  apostle  interweaves  with 
his  doxology  a  description  and  eulogium  of  the  gospel,  he  ren- 
ders the  sentence  so  long  and  complicated  that  the  regular 
grammatical  construction  is  broken.  There  is  nothing  to  govern 
the  words  [roj  dovaptioj)  to  him  that  is  of  power.  The  words 
he  glory  for  ever,  (which  are  repeated  at  the  end  in  connection 
with  oj)  are,  therefore,  most  probably  to  be  supplied.  To  him 
that  is  able  to  establish  you,  i.  e.,  to  render  you  firm  and  con- 
stant, to  keep  you  from  falling.  According  to  my  gospel.  The 
word  {xard)  according  to,  may  be  variously  explained.  It  may 
be  rendered,  'establish  you  in  my  gospel;'  but  this  the  proper 
meaning  of  the  words  will  hardly  allow;  or,  agreeably  to  my 
gospel,  in  such  a  manner  as  the  gospel  requires;  or,  through, 
i.  e.,  by  means  of  my  gospel.  The  second  interpretation  is 
perhaps  the  best.  And  the  preaching  of  Jesus  Christ.  This 
may  mean  either  'Christ's  preaching,'  or,  'the  preaching  con- 
cerning Christ;'  either  interpretation  gives  a  good  sense,  the 
gospel  being  b(\t;h  a  proclamation  by  Christ,  and  concerning 
Christ.  The  apostle  dwells  upon  this  idea,  and  is  led  into  a 
description  and  commendation  of  the  gospel.  According  to  the 
revelation  of  the  mystery.  These  words  may  be  considered  as 
co-ordinate  with  the  preceding  clause ;  the  sense  then  is,  '  Who 
is  able  to  establish  you  agreeably  to  (or  through)  my  gospel, 
agreeably  to  (through)  the  revelation  of  the  mystery,  &c.'  It 
is,  however,  more  common  to  consider  this  clause  as  subordinate 
and  descriptive.  'The  gospel  is  a  revelation  of  the  mystery 
which  had  been  hid  for  ages.'  The  word  mystery,  according  to 
the  common  scriptural  sense  of  the  term,  does  not  mean  some- 
thing obscure  or  incomprehensible,  but  simply  something  pre- 
viously unknown  and  undiscoverable  by  human  reason,  and 
which,  if  known  at  all,  must  be  known  by  a  revelation  from 


712  ROMANS  XVI.  26. 

God.  In  this  sense  the  gospel  is  called  a  mystery,  or  "the 
•wisdom  of  God  in  a  mystery,  that  is,  a  hidden  wisdom,"  which 
the  wise  of  this  world  could  not  discover,  but  which  God  has 
revealed  by  his  Spirit,  1  Cor.  ii.  7 — 10,  iv.  1,  Eph.  vi.  19,  Col. 
i.  25 — 27,  ii.  2,  &c.  In  the  same  sense  any  particular  doctrine, 
as  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles,  Eph.  iii.  4 — 6 ;  the  restoration 
of  the  Jews,  Rom.  xi.  25 ;  the  change  of  the  bodies  of  living 
believers  at  the  last  day,  1  Cor.  xv.  51 ;  is  called  a  mystery, 
because  a  matter  of  divine  revelation.  According  to  this 
passage,  Paul  speaks  of  the  gospel  as  something  "  which  had 
been  kept  secret  since  the  world  began;"  {^povoc^  aicovcoK;^) 
i.  e.,  hidden  from  eternity  in  the  divine  mind.  It  is  not  a 
system  of  human  philosophy,  or  the  result  of  human  investiga- 
tion, but  it  is  a  revelation  of  the  purpose  of  God.  Paul  often 
presents  the  idea  that  the  plan  of  redemption  was  formed  from 
eternity,  and  is  such  as  no  eye  could  d^cover,  and  no  heart 
conceive,  1  Cor.  ii.  7 — 9,  Col.  i.  26.         / 

Verse  26.  But  is  now  made  manifest,  and  hy  the  Scrip- 
tures of  the  prophets;  that  is,  '  this  giiispel  or  mystery,  hidden 
from  eternity,  is  now  revealed;  not  now  for  the  first  time 
indeed,  since  there  are  so  many  intimations  of  it  in  the  prophe- 
cies of  the  Old  Testament.'  It  is  evident  that  the  apostle  adds 
the  words  and  hy  the  Scriptures  of  the  'prophets,  to  avoid 
having  it  supposed  that  he  overlooked  the  fact  that  the  plan  of 
redemption  was  taught  in  the  Old  Testament^  compare  chap. 
i.  2,  iii.  21.  According  to  the  command  of  the  everlasting  Grod, 
that  is,  this  gospel  is  now  made  manifest  by  command  of  God. 
Paul  probably  uses  the  expression,  everlasting  [aicjucou)  Crody 
because  he  had  just  before  said  that  the  gospel  was  hid  from 
eternity.  *  It  is  now  revealed  by  that  eternal  Being  in  whose 
mind  the  wonderful  plan  was  formed,  and  by  whom  alone  it 
could  be  revealed.'  Made  known  to  all  nations  for  the  obedience 
of  the  faith.  '  Made  known  among  {set;,  see  Mark  xiii.  10, 
Luke  xxiv.  47)  all  nations.'  For  the  obedience  of  faith,  i.  e., 
that  they  should  become  obedient  to  the  faith ;  see  chap.  i.  5. 
This  gospel,  so  long  concealed,  or  but  partially  revealed  in  the 
ancient  prophets,  is  now,  by  the  command  of  God,  to  be  made 
known  among  all  nations. 


ROMANS  XVI.  27.  713 

Verse  27.  To  the  only  wise  G-od  he  glory  through  Jesus 
Christ  for  ever,  Amen.  There  is  an  ambiguity  in  the  original 
which  is  not  retained  in  our  version.  '  To  the  only  wise  God, 
through  Jesus  Christ,  to  whom  he  glory  for  ever.'  The  con- 
struction adopted  by  our  translators  is  perhaps  the  one  most 
generally  approved.  *  To  him  that  is  able  to  establish  you,  to 
the  only  wise  God,  through  Jesus  Christ,  be  glory.'  In  this 
case  the  relative  ^,  to  whom,  in  verse  27,  is  pleonastic.  Others 
explain  the  passage  thus,  '  To  the  only  wise  God,  made  known 
through  Jesus  Christ,  to  whom  (i.  e.,  Christ)  be  glory  for  ever.' 
The  simplest  construction  is,  '  To  the  only  wise  God,  through 
Jesus  Christ,  to  him,  I  say,  be  glory  for  ever.'  As  Paul  often 
calls  the  gospel  the  "wisdom  of  God,"  in  contrast  with  the 
wisdom  of  men,  he  here,  when  speaking  of  the  plan  of  redemp- 
tion as  the  product  of  the  divine  mind,  and  intended  for  all 
nations,  addresses  his  praises  to  its  author  as  the  only  wise 
God,  as  that  Being  whose  wisdom  is  so  wonderfully  displayed 
in  the  gospel  and  in  all  his  other  works,  that  he  alone  can  be 
considered  truly  wise. 

REMARKS. 

1.  It  is  the  duty  of  Christians  to  receive  kindly  their 
brethren,  and  to  aid  them  in  every  way  within  their  power,  and 
to  do  this  from  religious  motives  and  in  a  religious  manner,  as 
becometh  saints,  vs.  1,  2. 

2.  The  social  relations  in  which  Christians  stand  to  each 
other  as  relatives,  countrymen,  friends,  should  not  be  allowed 
to  give  character  to  their  feelings  and  conduct  to  the  exclusion 
of  the  more  important  relation  which  they  bear  to  Christ.  It 
is  as  friends,  helpers,  fellow-labourers  in  the  Lord,  that  they 
are  to  be  recognised ;  they  are  to  be  received  in  the  Lord ; 
our  common  connection  with  Christ  is  ever  to  be  borne  in 
mind,  and  made  to  modify  all  our  feelings  and  conduct, 
vs.  3—12. 

3.  From  the  beginning  females  have  taken  an  active  and 
important  part  in  the  promotion  of  the  gospel.  They  seem, 
more  than  others,  to  have  contributed  to  Christ  of  their  sub- 
stance.    They  were  his  most  faithful  attendants,  "  last  at  the 


714  ROMANS  XVI.  1—27. 

cross,  and  first  at  the  sepulchre."  Phebe  was  a  servant  of 
the  church,  a  succourer  of  Paul,  and  of  many  others;  Try- 
phena,  Tryphosa,  and  Persis,  laboured  much  in  the  Lord,  vs.  1, 
2,  3,  6,  12. 

4.  It  does  not  follow,  because  a  custom  prevailed  in  the  early 
churches,  and  received  the  sanction  of  the  apostles,  that  we  are 
obliged  to  follow  it.  These  customs  often  arose  out  of  local 
circumstances  and  previous  habits,  or  were  merely  conventional 
modes  of  expressing  certain  feelings,  and  were  never  intended 
to  be  made  universally  obligatory.  As  it  was  common  in  the 
East,  (and  is  so,  to  a  great  extent,  at  present,  not  only  there, 
but  on  the  continent  of  Europe,)  to  express  affection  and  con- 
fidence by  'the  kiss  of  peace,'  Paul  exhorts  the  Roman  Chris- 
tians to  salute  one  another  with  a  holy  kiss ;  i.  e.,  to  manifest 
their  Christian  love  to  each  other,  according  to  the  mode  to 
which  they  were  accustomed.  The  exercise  and  manifesta- 
tion of  the  feeling,  but  not  the  mode  of  its  expression,  are 
obligatory  on  us.  This  is  but  one  example ;  there  are  many 
other  things  connected  with  the  manner  of  conducting  public 
worship,  and  with  the  administration  of  baptism  and  the 
Lord's  Supper,  common  in  the  apostolic  churches,  which  have 
gone  out  of  use.  Christianity  is  a  living  principle,  and  was 
never  intended  to  be  confined  to  one  unvarying  set  of  forms, 
ver.  16. 

5.  It  is  the  duty  of  Christians  to  be  constantly  watchful  over 
the  peace  and  purity  of  the  church,  and  not  to  allow  those  who 
cause  divisions  and  scandals,  by  departing  from  the  true  doc- 
trines, to  pursue  their  course  unnoticed.  With  all  such  we 
should  break  off  every  connection  which  either  sanctions  their 
opinions  and  conduct,  or  gives  them  facilities  for  effecting 
evil,  ver.  17. 

6.  False  teachers  have  ever  abounded  in  the  church.  All 
the  apostles  were  called  upon  earnestly  to  oppose  them.  Wit- 
ness the  epistles  of  Paul,  John,  Peter,  and  James.  No  one  of 
the  apostolical  epistles  is  silent  on  this  subject.  Good  men 
may  indeed  hold  erroneous  doctrines;  but  the  false  teachers, 
the  promoters  of  heresy  and  divisions,  as  a  class,  are  character- 
ized by  Paul  as  not  influenced  by  a  desire  to  serve  Christ,  but 


ROMANS  XVI.  1— 2T.  715 

as  selfish  in  their  aims,  and  plausible,  flattering,  and  deceitful 
in  their  conduct,  ver.  18. 

7.  Christians  should  unite  the  harmlessness  of  the  dove  with 
the  wisdom  of  the  serpent.  They  should  be  careful  neither  to 
cause  divisions  or  scandals  themselves,  nor  allow  others  to 
deceive  and  beguile  them  into  evil,  ver.  19. 

8.  However  much  the  church  may  be  distracted  and  troubled, 
error  and  its  advocates  cannot  finally  prevail.  Satan  is  a  con- 
quered enemy  with  a  lengthened  chain ;  God  will  ultimately 
bruise  him  under  the  feet  of  his  people,  ver.  20. 

9.  The  stability  which  the  church  and  every  Christian  should 
maintain,  is  a  steadfastness,  not  in  forms  or  matters  of  human 
authority,  but  in  the  gospel  and  the  preaching  of  Jesus  Christ. 
God  alone  is  able  thus  to  make  his  people  stand ;  and,  there- 
fore, we  should  look  to  him,  and  depend  upon  him  for  our  own 
preservation  and  the  preservation  of  the  church ;  and  ascribe  to 
him,  and  not  to  ourselves,  all  glory  and  thanks,  vs.  25,  27. 

10.  The  gospel  is  a  mystery,  i.  e.,  a  system  of  truth  beyond 
the  power  of  the  human  mind  to  discover,  which  God  has 
revealed  for  our  faith  and  obedience.  It  was  formed  from  eter- 
nity in  the  divine  mind,  revealed  by  the  prophets  and  apostles, 
and  the  preaching  of  Jesus  Christ ;  and  is,  by  the  command  of 
God,  to  be  made  known  to  all  nations,  vs.  25,  26. 

11.  God  alone  is  wise.  He  charges  his  angels  with  folly; 
and  the  wisdom  of  men  is  foolishness  with  him.  To  God,  there- 
fore, the  profoundest  reverence  and  the  most  implicit  submis- 
sion are  due.  Men  should  not  presume  to  call  in  question  what 
he  has  revealed,  or  consider  themselves  competent  to  sit  in 
judgment  on  the  truth  of  his  declarations  or  the  wisdom  of 
his  plans.  To  God  only  wise,  be  glory,  through  Jesus 
Christ,  for  ever.  Amen. 


The  subscriptions  to  this  and  the  other  epistles  were  not  added  by  the 
sacred  writers,  but  appended  by  some  later  and  unknown  persons.  This  is 
evident,  1.  Because  it  cannot  be  supposed  that  the  apostles  would  thus  for- 
mally state  (as  in  this  case)  what  those  to  whom  their  letters  were  addressed 
must  have  already  known.  The  Romans  had  no  need  to  be  informed  that  this 
epistle  was  sent  by  Phebe,  if  she  actually  delivered  it  to  them.     2.  They  are 


716  KOMANS. 

frequently  incorrect,  and  at  times  contradict  the  statements  made  in  the  epis- 
tles to  which  they  are  appended.  Thus  the  subscription  to  the  first  Epistle  to 
the  Corinthians,  states  that  it  was  written  from  Philippi,  whereas  Paul,  chap, 
xvi.  8,  speaks  of  himself  as  being  in  Ephesus  when  he  was  writing.  3.  They 
are  either  left  out  entirely  by  the  oldest  and  best  manuscripts  and  versions,  or 
appear  in  very  different  forms.  In  the  present  case  many  MSS.  have  no  sub- 
scription at  all ;  others  simply,  "To  the  Romans;"  others,  "To  the  Romans, 
written  from  Corinth;"  others,  "Written  to  the  Romans  from  Corinth,  by 
Phebe,"  &c.  These  subscriptions,  therefore,  are  of  no  other  authority  than 
as  evidence  of  the  opinion  which  prevailed  to  a  certain  extent,  at  an  early 
date,  as  to  the  origin  of  the  epistles  to  which  they  are  attached.  Unless  con- 
firmed from  other  sources,  they  cannot  be  relied  upon. 


THE  END. 


BS2665.H68818A4a 
Commentary  on  the  Ep'Stle  to  the 

Princelon  Theological  Seminary -Specr  Library 

i!illl!l!lli|l|j| 


1    1012  00032  9229 


DATE  DUE 

mmiiHs 

mm-' 

""    MiBPW^* 

FPif 

;^J«**#^ 

^'itMitm 

*H. 

i^^g^g^gj^ 

^^^ 

TDiiigaw:-. 

..■MfTS^ 

^*^*^** 

Hi 

i^m  %  1 

ZOfiC 

HIGHSMITH  #^ 

15230 

Pr(nl»<J 
In  USA 

